Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by Velokid1 » Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:00 pm

Amskeptic wrote: Government, as a percentage of GDP, has been consistently around 22% since 1962.
Interesting. Is that more or less the accepted way of quantifying the size of the government? I've never paid any attention to that.

edit: I didn't try too hard but did find this little ditty... http://www.survivalblog.com/2011/02/let ... ent_o.html

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by steve74baywin » Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:31 am

When talking with a friend over the last year who also loves Ron Paul, I brought up how if Ron Paul got elected but not enough people understand enough, those super wealthy (international banking cartel) could just use him to tank this country even further and get the people all pissed. In other words a Ron Paul win could be used to further the Cartels agenda by bring us so low we give in to their world gov dreams. It would take too long to explain here all the details of what could happen if enough people didn't understand enough and some start to correct the wrongs and head towards Libertarianism and sound money principles. This was if he won in 2012.
The other day I was watching TV, something I practically never do, but not having my own place any more and not having money to do much of anything, I decided to kill days in front of the hypnotist, I mean TV. Anyways, hearing some of the jackies on TV talk of this stuff was amazing. I was amazed to see them promoting only half truths and because of that slam some of the sound money principles we believe in. I saw what I thought they'd do in 2012 if Ron got in being done right now. (In fact it reminded me of what a person or two on here post about Libertarians)
Yeah, I'm starting think there is no hope.
Might be time for me to start just thinking of myself and enjoy my remaining years on this planet.

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by Bleyseng » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:16 am

Amskeptic wrote:
Velokid1 wrote: I'm not a Democrat so it's a moot point, but for the record I am not for big government. I just think the "no big government" bit is rabid and irrational at the moment. I don't really care what size government is... what I care about is that it is being run by intelligent, kind, rational individuals.


This debt ceiling crisis is fabricated nonsense. Ask any nonpartisan professional economist if the total national debt is "in the red" and they will tell you that we have longterm adjustments that must be undertaken, but in the current recession-induced economic malaise, now is NOT the time to dramatically cut spending.
Colin
This makes the debt ceiling issue a "No Brainer" but the Tea Party members aren't known for using their brains.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Velokid1
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by Velokid1 » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:29 am

Everything You Need to Know About the Debt Ceiling

This piece if full of clickable links for references, if you go here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... #pagebreak
Posted at 10:05 AM ET, 07/22/2011
Everything you need to know about the debt ceiling in one post
By Ezra Klein and Dylan Matthews

Wall Street

GALLERY: Click the image above to see what might happen if Congress does not raise the debt limit.

What it is: The debt ceiling is a legal cap on the amount of money the Treasury can borrow to fund existing government functions. It essentially authorizes the Treasury to borrow the money necessary to pay the bills incurred by the federal government.

Where it came from: Before 1917, Congress authorized the Treasury to issue bonds for specific purposes. But that meant approving every bond separately. To fund World War I, Congress decided to give the Treasury more latitude by instituting caps on how much it could borrow through each type of bond, rather than forcing it to get every new bond approved separately. In 1939, this was changed so that most bonds were bound by the same limit, effectively creating the general debt ceiling we have today.

How has it worked? The debt ceiling has traditionally been raised as a matter of course whenever Congress passes spending bills requiring more borrowing, though the opposition party has often voted against increases to signal its opposition to the majority’s deficit spending. Between 1940 and 2010, we have increased the debt limit more than 70 times, and from 1979 to 1995, a House rule proposed by Rep. Richard Gephardt made increases automatic by raising the ceiling whenever new spending is approved. The new Republican majority repealed this rule in 1995 in order to use raising the debt ceiling as leverage in getting President Clinton to agree to spending cuts.

Why it’s an issue now: Currently, the debt limit is set at $14.3 trillion. Around Aug. 2, the Treasury will exhaust that borrowing authority. Because spending currently exceeds revenues by almost 45 percent, if that happens, we will either have to default on our debt or stop funding a substantial portion of the government. Congress could simply choose to raise the debt ceiling, but like the 1995 House GOP, the 2011 House GOP is insisting that it will not increase the debt ceiling without large spending cuts from President Obama.

What happens if we don’t raise the debt ceiling but continue to pay interest on our bonds? This is an option known as “prioritization.” The Bipartisan Policy Center released a report attempting to think through how this would work in practice, as it has never been attempted before. The raw numbers are chilling: In August, the federal government would have to cut expenditures by about $134 billion, or 10 percent of the month’s GDP. If it chose, for instance, to fund Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, supplies for the troops and interest on our bonds, it would have to stop funding every other part of the federal government. The drop in demand, when coupled with the turmoil in the markets and the general financial uncertainty, would undoubtedly throw the economy back into a recession. Also keep in mind that we have to roll over $500 billion in debt that month, and if there was uncertainty about how we were going to pay our bills, it is not clear we could find buyers for our debt at anything less than an exorbitant rate. In this way, “prioritization” could actually increase the deficit.

What happens if we stop paying the interest on our debt? This is too scary to consider for any serious length of time. Treasury securities sit at the base of the global financial system. They are considered so safe that the interest rate on Treasuries is called the “riskless rate of return,” as the market assumes there is no chance of default under any circumstances. Almost all other types of debt — mortgages, credit card, auto loans, business loans, hospital bonds, etc. — are yoked to Treasuries. Almost all major financial players hold substantial portfolios of Treasuries or Treasury-related debt in order to buffer themselves against financial shocks. Consider that the 2007 financial crisis was caused by the market realizing it had to reassess the risk of bonds based on subprime mortgages. If the market has to reassess the risk of Treasuries, the resulting financial crisis will be beyond anything we’ve ever seen in this country.

Do we need a debt ceiling? Strictly speaking, no. The debt ceiling is unique to America. In other countries, when the legislature passes a law, the Treasury is given automatic authority to carry it out. A number of former Treasury Secretaries have said it should be abolished, including Larry Summers, who said, “I think that given that Congress has to approve all spending and all tax changes, there is not much logic to the debt ceiling.”

Does the debt ceiling reduce deficits? In general, no. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined this issue and concluded (pdf) that “setting a limit on the debt is an ineffective means of controlling deficits because the decisions that necessitate borrowing are made through other legislative actions. By the time an increase in the debt ceiling comes up for approval, it is too late to avoid paying the government’s pending bills without incurring serious negative consequences.”

Is the debt ceiling unconstitutional? A number of commentators have suggested that the 14th Amendment, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned,” renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional. Others have disagreed, including Lawrence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, who notes that the Constitution gives Congress the sole power “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” Ultimately, this point is probably moot, at least for the time being, as the Treasury Department has stated that it agrees with Professor Tribe’s interpretation.

What are the deals that Congress is considering in order to raise the debt limit, and could you rank them from most-to-least likely?

Sure.

* McConnell and McConnell-Reid: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed giving Obama the unilateral power to increase the debt ceiling, with Congress capable of blocking him if it passed and overrode his veto on resolutions condemning the increase in the limit. The idea would be to force Democrats to vote repeatedly in favor of increasing the debt ceiling, while allowing House Republicans to vote against it without forcing the U.S. to prioritize programs or default. House Republicans rejected this as a giveaway to the administration, so to make it more palatable to them McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been working on attaching $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and an expedited congressional process for approving them to the plan.

* A big deal: In negotiations with congressional Republicans, Obama pushed for a deal to cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years through a combination of discretionary cuts, changes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, and revenue increases achieved through cutting tax breaks. Specific options considered as part of this plan included an increase in the Medicare retirement age, reducing the rate of growth for Social Security benefits, and cuts to the employer health care tax deduction. House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor rejected the big deal, but it appears to be making a comeback.

* A small deal: Negotiations between the administration and congressional Republicans uncovered between $1 trillion and $2 trillion in spending cuts that both the Democrats and the Republicans could accept. The Democrats would like to see these spending cuts accompanied by new revenues, but there have been some intimations that the Obama administration could accept a deal with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts and no new revenues. The most specific look we’ve gotten at these cuts came in a slideshow presented by Eric Cantor and leaked to the press.

* A clean debt limit increase: For the first few months of negotiations, the White House stated that it wanted a “clean” debt limit increase, not paired with any spending cuts or rule changes. When it became clear Congress would not vote for this, the administration abandoned the call and started working out a deal. On May 31, the House voted overwhelmingly against a clean debt limit increase, in an attempt by House Republicans to get Democrats on record supporting it. You can argue, however, that McConnell’s proposal is essential a clean increase.

* Cut, Cap, Balance: Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced a bill, backed by the House Republican leadership, called “Cut, Cap, and Balance,” which would increase the debt ceiling in exchange for $111 billion in immediate cuts next year, statutory caps on spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that includes a spending cap of 18 percent of the previous year’s GDP and would require supermajorities to raise taxes or increase the debt ceiling. If the amendment was ratified, spending would have to drop to its lowest levels since the 1950s — despite the fact that we now have Medicare, Medicaid, more seniors, etc. — and taxes would be almost impossible to raise. The White House has promised to veto the bill, saying that deficit reduction does not require changes to the Constitution, and that the cuts involved are draconian.

Further reading:

*The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s comprehensive primer on the debt ceiling.

*The Congressional Budget Office’s report on “Federal Debt and Interest Costs.”

*The Government Accounting Office’s report on past efforts to manage delays in lifting the debt ceiling.

*The Bipartisan Policy Center’s analysis of what will happen if we pass the Aug. 2 deadline without lifting the debt ceiling.

For more news about the U.S. debt-ceiling showdown, visit Post Business.

By Ezra Klein and Dylan Matthews | 10:05 AM ET, 07/22/2011

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by steve74baywin » Thu Jul 28, 2011 9:39 am

Amskeptic wrote: but in the current recession-induced economic malaise, now is NOT the time to dramatically cut spending.
Colin
Logically then, if you don't cut spending in a recession, does that mean you cut spending when things are booming?

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by Amskeptic » Thu Jul 28, 2011 10:46 am

steve74baywin wrote:
Amskeptic wrote: but in the current recession-induced economic malaise, now is NOT the time to dramatically cut spending.
Colin
Logically then, if you don't cut spending in a recession, does that mean you cut spending when things are booming?
Logically, yes, of course. We *are* talking about entitlements.

Clinton passed the welfare reform of the mid 90's during good times.
Readjusting the rules of Medicare/Medicaid/AFDC/Title 8 during a recession is pure bone-headed cruelty.

You ever run a business, Steve? Investment versus expense?
Posturing Congresspeople blabble about business acumen, but they are complete idiots, I am sorry, when it comes to longterm investment, particularly in people.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
BellePlaine
IAC Addict!
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by BellePlaine » Thu Jul 28, 2011 11:31 am

steve74baywin wrote:In other words a Ron Paul win could be used to further the Cartels agenda by bring us so low we give in to their world gov dreams. It would take too long to explain here all the details of what could happen if enough people didn't understand enough and some start to correct the wrongs and head towards Libertarianism and sound money principles.
Steve, I don't think that I follow you. Are you saying that if we ended the current federal reserve banking system and stopped printing money, devaluing it, that our economy would crash and our currency could conceivably be propped up by a some new world currency > government?
1975 Riviera we call "Spider-Man"

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by steve74baywin » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:12 pm

BellePlaine wrote:
steve74baywin wrote:In other words a Ron Paul win could be used to further the Cartels agenda by bring us so low we give in to their world gov dreams. It would take too long to explain here all the details of what could happen if enough people didn't understand enough and some start to correct the wrongs and head towards Libertarianism and sound money principles.
Steve, I don't think that I follow you. Are you saying that if we ended the current federal reserve banking system and stopped printing money, devaluing it, that our economy would crash and our currency could conceivably be propped up by a some new world currency > government?
Sort of, yes, if without enough people understanding why and being committed to it, we end the Fed, start ending the welfare entitlement stuff, there could be hardships at first. In fact things could get really, really bad. Our country, many aspects of it work with money fed from the Fed/treasury borrowing creating money from the International banking cartel. If done the wrong way with out people fully knowing why, they could cause a huge disaster. If people also don't understand who influences the dudes on the news, and who owns the news, all it would take is a little propaganda to make people run for even bigger government, probably the Amero would be accepted. Even with say 80% of the people knowing, it still will be hard at first, but we would gravitate back to an economy more natural, we would provide more for ourselves on a household level, local level and as a country.
See, this country has been able to do what it has done by money fed into it by the printing of money, this FIAT currency. We have been spoiled and live unnaturally high. In fact, we all still could living far better off, if they still kept doing it. The actions taken in my opinion have been intentional to get us into this hardship we are now in.

Kinda like if you got a fat daddy given you an open ended or no limit credit card. You could get suckered into some high living, but later find yourself dependent on him and not liking his control over you, and if you ever want to break away from him, it is going to be tough at first.
In our countries case, this hardship we now have must be because that fat Uncle is wanting something from us. I'd say to get us more needing and begging for more control and something I said in the past, bad economies gets our kids to join the military. I need to update that saying, it also get adults to join the military and become contractors overseas.

steve74baywin
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Debt Ceiling Brinksmanship

Post by steve74baywin » Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:36 pm

Amskeptic wrote:
steve74baywin wrote:
Amskeptic wrote: but in the current recession-induced economic malaise, now is NOT the time to dramatically cut spending.
Colin
Logically then, if you don't cut spending in a recession, does that mean you cut spending when things are booming?
Logically, yes, of course. We *are* talking about entitlements.

Clinton passed the welfare reform of the mid 90's during good times.
Readjusting the rules of Medicare/Medicaid/AFDC/Title 8 during a recession is pure bone-headed cruelty.
Colin
Ah, okay, I did not know you were speaking of entitlements only.
I partly agree, I think the Tea Party and Repubs are playing games as usual. Ron Paul has said many times he would cut the military over seas first, the 170+ countries we are in and one of the last things to do would be Medicare and Social Security. Also, everyone should get any money they put into it. What they would do is stop the forcing of your money into it, but honor those who have been expecting and paying into it. This is smoke and mirrors now.
Like I eluded to in a post in this thread much earlier today, they are mentioning and only doing a small portion and them slamming it. It is like they are trashing the idea now, instead of after 2012 if we had a Ron Paul in, I'd expected them to play games, but not this soon. However, when I saw this 'Tea Party" prop up with people who didn't know jack, I suspected no good. (some of the same repub jackies I hated now speaking small bits of truth)
Amskeptic wrote: You ever run a business, Steve? Investment versus expense?
Posturing Congresspeople blabble about business acumen, but they are complete idiots, I am sorry, when it comes to longterm investment, particularly in people.
Colin
In this current system, were their is the controllers, the International Banking Cartel that does view us as part of their business, they have invested in us for years, that is how they got this military that they use to build the empire around the world, the question needs to be why are they pulling the plug on it?
This is also why I am against this system, I don't want my gov to have that control to invest money in me like I'm an asset to grow their business.

Post Reply