| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If America can not survive the interruption of her gov't, then She doesn't deserve to continue on.
I think we'll be fine in the long run.
As a wolf no one can tell I'm not from canada anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the 14th Amendment (section 4), the US cannot default on its debts. The goverment would have to operate within its means, which means about 10% of the current spending would have to be cut to pay debt payments.
So there is no chance of default, unless you listen to the political class who want to rile up the ignorant, or to the media, who never question things too deeply because thinking is hard.
Why not cross into Canada legally?
Private individuals and enterprises are what's important, not special interests and bureaucrats. Let the government starve, atrophy, and be seen for what it really is.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Yes, that is what it says. The debts are valid, they will be paid. Before other stuff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like having a government you should relocate to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
Take the strawman somewhere else, please.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the "go to extreme other end" stuff.
Want limited gov't? Go live in Somalia!
~makes as much sense as~
Want the gov't to provide essential services? Go live in 70's Soviet Russia!
lolwut?
Its an unfair comparison, but it does exist along the same road.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, neither are correct, and both are hyperbole. Correct.
You get a cookie.
Government serves a function. The only thing people quibble over is how many functions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Government serves a function. The only thing people quibble over is how many functions.
Agreed. But it's hard to reconcile that with "let the government starve." Starvation is fatal.
The "pro-default" crowd really brings this to mind.
Want the gov't to provide essential services? Go live in 70's Soviet Russia!
Jobs, health care and this guy?
Yes, please!
Vive le Galt!
Private individuals and enterprises are what's important, not special interests and bureaucrats. Let the government starve, atrophy, and be seen for what it really is.It terrifies me that there are people out there who believe that fevered libertarian opium dream.
If you don't like having a government you should relocate to the libertarian paradise of Somalia.
Fair enough, let's look at somolia. Before it was anarchy, there was totaliarian regime, before that it was bombed and conquered by The Government of Britain. Since the civil war there have been economic growth that was higher than before. It's not looking at somolia compared to the US, it's looking at somolia compared to the alternatives for somolia.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it's hard to reconcile that with "let the government starve." Starvation is fatal.
Unless you're trying to improve your health. Then, you need to put down the double-quarter-pounder with cheese and not order the extra large milkshake to go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you're trying to improve your health. Then, you need to put down the double-quarter-pounder with cheese and not order the extra large milkshake to go.
According to Google, starve means "suffer severely or die from hunger."
Improving one's diet and starving are not the same thing. They don't carry the same connotations. Likewise, there is a difference between saying the government needs to cut back and the government needs to starve. Almost anyone would agree with the former, but few with the latter.
How about this:
If you don't mean starve, don't say starve. It's confusing.
If you DO mean starve (or "drown in a bathtub"), then own the crazy.
I'm okay with giving the government an emergency gastric bypass procedure. Does that make you feel better?
Own the crazy? Like the $17 trillion in debt? And the $90+ trillion in unfunded liabilities? Like the ACA websites that keep crashing? Or the fact that "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" apparently means "your insurance is cancelled and replaced by something with a higher deductible and double the rate you were paying"?
Because what you call "crazy" I call "said it two years ago."
I LOL'd
Very nice Bugley :)
I'm okay with giving the government an emergency gastric bypass procedure. Does that make you feel better?
It makes me feel less like I'm talking to an anarchist. :)
I think we agree that the government needs to spend less. I suspect we disagree about who should bear the brunt of those cuts. For example, I don't think cutting things like SNAP is good policy.
Own the crazy? Like the $17 trillion in debt? And the $90+ trillion in unfunded liabilities? Like the ACA websites that keep crashing? Or the fact that "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" apparently means "your insurance is cancelled and replaced by something with a higher deductible and double the rate you were paying"?
Because what you call "crazy" I call "said it two years ago."
No, crazy like not paying our bills.
Congress can keep fighting over the government shutdown and the sequester if they must, but simply not paying the bills isn't a sane option.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SO what are the ramifications for you if this continues and no deal is achieved? Where do you go from here? What do you do? Do you become economic refugees and attempt to cross illegally into Canada?
Remember reading in history class about the Great Depression? Well, we won't have to look in books to see how bad it was back then, we'll just have to look outside.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the talk always about cutting spending and not increasing revenue?
Or as Doug's Workshop might say, "Why don't you get off the couch and go for a run?"
The government has about 10% of its budget going to pay debt payments. All bills will be paid (unless the administration goes to court to say "No, we don't have to," which I really don't see happening (late night television would have a field day, and even the low information voter would start to question the administrations policies). All entitlements would be paid. Discretionary spending would be cut dramatically.
If the debt limit isn't raised, the government has to live within its means. Outgo = income, just like the rest of us lowly citizens, businesses, and nonprofits.
Would it hurt? Sure, there would be some pain. And every government program has its defenders. But someone has to be the grown-up in the room and say "No." Everybody would prefer it if "No" was said back in your 20s when exercise was easier and you didn't weigh 500lbs. But since self-control wasn't on the table then, you get the gastric bypass option.
One side of the debate says "how dare you deny me my cupcakes!" The other side says "You need to exercise or you're going in for gastric bypass."
What will happen? All parties will agree that gastric bypass is too painful, and they'll agree that a promise to not eat a cupcake at some point in the undefined future is just as good as actually dieting, with no intention of actually keeping that promise. And the patient will balloon to 800lbs and continue to be features on the "People of WalMart" website.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the talk always about cutting spending and not increasing revenue?
Or as Doug's Workshop might say, "Why don't you get off the couch and go for a run?"
Agreed. I just want us to balance the budget. As far as the how, I'd suggest both spending cuts and additional revenue. Despite what the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party would have you believe, the United States is not anywhere near record tax revenue as a % of GDP. Pretty middle of the road, actually.
But it would also be naive to say that there is no waste in the federal government.
I keep telling you that if you want a balanced budget, I have a plan for you!
One side of the debate says "how dare you deny me my cupcakes!" The other side says "You need to exercise or you're going in for gastric bypass.
Interesting point of view, but of course you're begging the question by casting the opposition as the lazy fat guy.
I'd put it this way: One side of the debate says we should prioritize keeping our promises and investing in the future over further accelerating a growing -- and already unprecedented in post-war America -- concentration of wealth.
It depends on whether you lend credence to Supply-side economics, which I (spoiler alert!) do not.
I keep telling you that if you want a balanced budget, I have a plan for you!
I'm sure you do. But some cures are worse than the disease. If you refuse a bullet to the head as a cure to your cancer (which it most assuredly is), does that mean you love cancer? WHY DO YOU LOVE CANCER?! :P
Why not cross into Canada legally?
It's not as much fun... Canada is just cold Australia with strange animals and Hockey instead of Rugby/Aussie Rules.
Personally I just think you guys need a "every time the government fails, a politician gets executed" law.
Then again, I think we in the UK could use that too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a large part of the problem is money in politics. Unless you're independently wealthy, you can't wage a successful national campaign without massive fundraising. Basically, if you're aren't corrupt when you start, you damn sure will be by the time you get elected. We've essentially set up a system that weeds out many of the best qualified among us.
If they'd managed to agree on a balanced budget and had some time to plan it's possible that it would work out that way. Since they haven't and they won't, that's not what will happen.
What will happen, assuming the debt ceiling is not raised and that none of the drastic steps to avoid it are taken (platinum coin, invoking the 14th to rule the debt ceiling unconstitutional, etc) is that on the 17th or thereabouts the Treasury will not be able to borrow more money, but bills will keep coming in. Those bills are essentially debt, whether they're repayments of borrowed money, money owed on contracts, money owed for goods or services already received, pensions (mentioned in the 14th), salaries or pretty much whatever else the Treasury needs to pay out. Those bills will be paid until the money runs out, then they'll stop.
As time goes on more revenue will come in and many of the bills will eventually be paid, but not only is the revenue lower than the bills, neither of them are smooth. For the near future revenue will be even lower relative to expenses than averages would suggest.Meanwhile of course, at the first actual sign that the Treasury isn't going to pay something on time as it's supposed to, whether that's interest on the debt or any other bill, the markets panic, the economy collapses, revenues drop, even more bills don't get paid and we dive into a vicious spiral.
Well...technically speaking, if the government collapses, the deficit is zero. :)
Personally, I'm putting the finishing touches on my bladed boomerang.
Basic macro economics really. The only good way to run a balanced budget is to run a high trade surplus, which we're not anywhere near having. Essentially the economy is public debt + private debt + trade surplus. Since we have a huge trade deficit, balancing the public budget just drives private debt up or shrinks the economy as a whole. Not a good thing.
Hmmm...believe it or not, I've never heard it expressed that way. I'll have to give that some thought before I have anything to add.
I might be a while. ;)
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
I think that was what you were going for.
|
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Yes, that is what it says. The debts are valid, they will be paid. Before other stuff.
'...payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion...'
Eww! That provides for a police state all the way up to and including their retirement. What about the rest of you?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Private individuals and enterprises are what's important, not special interests and bureaucrats. Let the government starve, atrophy, and be seen for what it really is.
I love conservatives.
"Government sucks! Elect us!"
"Thanks for electing us! We're going to sabotage the government now!"
"Hey, look, we sabotaged the government, completing our own self-fulfilling prophecy! We were right! You should elect us again, because we were right!"
When a group of people tell you government sucks, encourages you to make them the government, and then do everything in their power to suck as hard as they possibly can, they're not smart or effective. They're just dicks.
|
|
Basic macro economics really. The only good way to run a balanced budget is to run a high trade surplus, which we're not anywhere near having. Essentially the economy is public debt + private debt + trade surplus. Since we have a huge trade deficit, balancing the public budget just drives private debt up or shrinks the economy as a whole. Not a good thing.Hmmm...believe it or not, I've never heard it expressed that way. I'll have to give that some thought before I have anything to add.
I might be a while. ;)
I don't think I explained it well. I'm not a economist and it's obviously more complicated than that.
And I can never find a good reference when I want one.
I'm okay with giving the government an emergency gastric bypass procedure. Does that make you feel better?
Own the crazy? Like the $17 trillion in debt? And the $90+ trillion in unfunded liabilities? Like the ACA websites that keep crashing? Or the fact that "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" apparently means "your insurance is cancelled and replaced by something with a higher deductible and double the rate you were paying"?
Another example of someone opposed to the ACA because they're absolutely terrified that it will be good for the country.
|
|
Private individuals and enterprises are what's important, not special interests and bureaucrats. Let the government starve, atrophy, and be seen for what it really is.I love conservatives.
"Government sucks! Elect us!"
"Thanks for electing us! We're going to sabotage the government now!"
"Hey, look, we sabotaged the government, completing our own self-fulfilling prophecy! We were right! You should elect us again, because we were right!"
When a group of people tell you government sucks, encourages you to make them the government, and then do everything in their power to suck as hard as they possibly can, they're not smart or effective. They're just dicks.
Would you be interested in a government that requires you to represent yourself now?