Raise Debt Limit or TEOTWAWKI - Geithner

[birdman]

The fundamental point of the matter is, if the debt limit isn't raised, federal revenue must be used for debt service first, which, in fact, is exactly what is done to prevent default (default being the non-payment of debt obligations).  Now, the rest of government would be hit with an immediate 50% cut (roughly), since deficit spending would be, by definition, eliminated.  Now, people would freak, but assuming that wave could be ridden through, not raising the debt limit is THE fastest way to a balanced budget, and since debt service would continue and be constitutionally enforced, "default" cannot occur, so increased borrowing rates would also not likely materialize (in fact, if we do raise the limit, I would bet they will rise, considering the only reason they aren't now is the fed buying them at super-low rates, thereby inflating our way to low rates by morts ing our future).

The part that pisses me off the most is the fact we are running a 1.5T deficit, which is equal to the increase in baseline spending over the past 3-4 years, you know, when we "had to" "temporarily" increase spending to prevent a financial meltdown and "prevent unemployment from exceeding 9%". What was wrong with 2005-2008 funding levels?  With various troop drawdowns, those levels, minus the overseas contingency ops funding would basically yield a balanced budget.  I am furious that this president demands financial normalization NOW after he and his dem supermajority jacked spending by 25-30% or more in two years, and now say the solution is more revenue!?  Screw that!  Hell, I'd take Clinton or Reagan era spending over this crap.  And don't worry, I'm laying the blame not on this president, or the previous, but, (since I actually understand the law, unlike the "average" American) on congress (the power of the purse)...you know, the one with a democratic majority for the past 5 years who is now whining they "can't get anything done". 

Anyway, I'm pissed, and I'm reserving a special hatred for the complete morons who inhabit my country and are bitching, whining, and begging for government scraps, complaining that they don't get what they are "entitled to", while selling their liberty down the river for bread and circuses...it is those who are truly at fault.

[Perd Hapley]

But what is the purpose of a debt ceiling, if you can't raise it when you want to pile up more debt?

I'm reserving a special hatred for the complete morons who inhabit my country and are whining, and begging for government scraps, complaining that they don't get what they are "entitled to", while selling their liberty down the river for bread and circuses...it is those who are truly at fault.

Wait, we get circuses if we do that?!

[birdman]

But what is the purpose of a debt ceiling, if you can't raise it when you want to pile up more debt?


Wait, we get circuses if we do that?!

We do, you don't, you just get a tiny car to share with a npbunch of other folks :)

[Fitz]

Birdman is clearly a person who worked hard to get where he is rich elitist who doesn't care for me, a lazy disadvantaged bottomfeeder citizen who wants free *expletive deleted* needs assistance from the poor suckers who actually believe that a welfare state is sustainable his fellow man.

[De Selby]

Birdman is clearly a person who worked hard to get where he is rich elitist who doesn't care for me, a lazy disadvantaged bottomfeeder citizen who wants free *expletive deleted* needs assistance from the poor suckers who actually believe that a welfare state is sustainable his fellow man.

It's the rich elite who are supporting a hike in the debt ceiling - they're the one who stand to lose the most from a default.

Payment of government debts will not be "constitutionally enforced." Creditors can't raid sovereign assets like they can private ones.

This is the surest path to a worthless currency - if the dreams of some posters here come through, my lunch money today could very well be a house payment in America by next year.

[Fitz]

The evidence on this very board (birdman) suggests the opposite.

A man with considerable means and a great intellect.

[MechAg94]

It's the rich elite who are supporting a hike in the debt ceiling - they're the one who stand to lose the most from a default.

Payment of government debts will not be "constitutionally enforced." Creditors can't raid sovereign assets like they can private ones.

This is the surest path to a worthless currency - if the dreams of some posters here come through, my lunch money today could very well be a house payment in America by next year.

No, the surest path to a worthless currency is to keep printing money.

[birdman]

It's the rich elite who are supporting a hike in the debt ceiling - they're the one who stand to lose the most from a default.

Payment of government debts will not be "constitutionally enforced." Creditors can't raid sovereign assets like they can private ones.

This is the surest path to a worthless currency - if the dreams of some posters here come through, my lunch money today could very well be a house payment in America by next year.

Creditors don't have to raid anything, unless we don't print ourselves into a hyper inflationary mess, the current revenue is easily sufficient for debt service.  And the government is actually constitutionally required to pay that first before other government functions.  The rich are not the ones supporting a debt ceiling hike, quite the opposite, they have little to lose if the govt has to radically cut spending, and much to gain from preventing an inflationary cycle (as it renders their current assets worth less--inflation is the "hidden tax" that is on assets, not income).  Those who do not have significant assets are (at least, those with low non-tangible assets) are the ones with the least to lose from an inflationary cycle as their debts will be worth less, and the increased spending benefits them more.

[MicroBalrog]

The evidence on this very board (birdman) suggests the opposite.

A man with considerable means and a great intellect.

I'm quite sure he is.

But this means absolutely nothing. Plural of anecdote is not data. Look at the role big corporations have played in the rise of the welfare state, start to finish.

[birdman]

I'm quite sure he is.

But this means absolutely nothing. Plural of anecdote is not data. Look at the role big corporations have played in the rise of the welfare state, start to finish.

I don't believe fitz was implying plural anecdote (or even just me) as sufficient evidence.  If possible, please cite which "big corporations" have played major encouragement roles in the rise of the welfare state.  I personally can cite several major ones, Fannie, Freddie in particular, the problem is, as GSE's, they do not fit the argument I believe you are trying to make.  One could follow those with large investment and retail banks, however, in terms of their encouragement, they functioned more as enablers, and in closer examination were encouraged to do so both by the large profits enabled by government interference in a free market through GSE's and through more blatant coercion through FHA, the CRA and the various groups that used these organizations and laws to "encourage" (ie extort) those corporations to follow the path they did.  In all of my research I cannot find a single profit motivated corporate entity that wanted a welfare state to arise without being encouraged to do so either directly by the government, or indirectly through GSE's or other government affiliated groups.  If you can cite examples otherwise, I would gladly be proved wrong, as it would be information I did not previously have.

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-03/republicans-may-accept-mini-debt-ceiling-deal-cornyn-says.html

And "We the People" get shafted again.

Republicans might accept a “mini” deal with the Obama administration on raising the debt limit, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican leader, said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.”

The idea may delay politically difficult decisions if it’s structured to postpone action on a larger package of spending cuts or revenue increases until after the 2012 election cycle, an analyst said.

The Dem tactic of "let's stonewall as hard as we can until both sides look bad, then do as little as possible at the last second, and make sure we kick the can past another election more than a year away" has won again.  Asshats.  And the Stoopid Party is seriously entertaining this, because the blue-blooders in the GOP are worried about losing power, too.

I predict:
-A craptastic compromise that pisses everybody off and accomplishes nothing, other than blowing smoke up the skirts of the creditors for another couple years.
-No "raising" of taxes, but several "loopholes" will be closed.  Same thing, different name.
-No meaningful address of Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid or other treasury-sucking programs.
-Cuts to DOD, and probably billions in cuts to NASA.

[roo_ster]

It won't be TEOTW.  But it will seem like it to NPR, Teh Nooz and all the fluffy programs that we don't need.  Hence, TIKIWIKI.

TEOTTAWKI "tay-otta-wiki"
The End Of The Trough As We Know It

[De Selby]

There is no constitutional ban on default, at least, not one so clear as to prevent a default.  Canceling debt is clearly unconstitutional, but failing to pay on time or in full is not a cancellation.

Birdman, history is rife with examples of corporations getting money - archer Daniels midland got billions in subsidies; wall street enthusiastically lobbied for welfare and received hundreds of billions in weepfare.

The welfare state makes corporations rich and gives poor individuals relatively meager benefits.  Both are welfare- you can only buy a penthouse with corporate welfare, though.  Welfare for the poor is much less generous.  Even ripping it off, the best you get is a nice steak or television set.

[Boomhauer]

Welfare for the poor is much less generous.  Even ripping it off, the best you get is a nice steak or television set.

Really now...

Because around here more than a few welfare reciepients drive around in Escalades and new caddys with rims that cost half of what my truck cost.

But I'm sure someone will be along to tell me it doesn't happen, that my own two eyes are lying to me.

[Nick1911]

Whatever the welfare society is given by government, the productive people will ALWAYS have more.  If they don't... the productive will either stop being productive or they will pursue a dramatic correction of income redistribution (such as insurrection or secession). 

So, whatever hurts the productive... will always hurt the welfare society MORE. 

You're right... losing assets or asset value will hurt the productive society a lot.  But when it comes to the daily grind of keeping the rain off your head and food in your mouth, productive people will be ahead of the curve when compared to welfare recipients.

And productive people will ride that storm.  When the moochers come to take food out of their very mouths and try to redistribute it to the welfare society, however, there will be conflict. 

It seems we as a society are REALLY AVERSE to having the welfare debate unless it REALLY HURTS.

TIKIWIKI will really hurt.  But it won't be the end of the world.  We all might lose big chunks of our 401k's and stocks and such.  But the wealth potential our country will have, once we axe our social programs once and for all, will make such an investment worthwhile ten times over.  Productive people will recoup their loses, and then some.

Where we sit right now, we have financial assassins heading our government and alley thugs down the street waiting to steal the scraps.

I'm all for doing something to disenfranchise the financial assassins, and turn the alley thugs into the outlaws they should be.  But to do that, we have to force their hand and make them bare their blades for all to see.

You don't think that they won't immediately push to put these programs back in place if cut?

We have an ideology split in this country - I don't see how a collapse will fix that.  Seeing hungry people in the street will only serve to give moochers MORE ammo that social programs are needed.

[41magsnub]

Really now...

Because around here more than a few welfare reciepients drive around in Escalades and new caddys with rims that cost half of what my truck cost.

But I'm sure someone will be along to tell me it doesn't happen, that my own two eyes are lying to me.

I'm not going to say that doesn't happen because I'm sure it does, but how many of those cases put every last cent of income they scrape up in addition to their various forms of welfare to the detriment of their kids and other obligations?  I think that is the more frequent case.

They could also be drug dealers....

[brimic]

It's the rich elite who are supporting a hike in the debt ceiling - they're the one who stand to lose the most from a default.

Wrong! They have the most to gain- not in wealth , but in power.
The rich elite don't have their assets in 401ks and savings accounts- they have it real estate, commodities, and hedge funds.

Hyperinflation would effectively wipe out the middle class, leaving a two-tiered system: the wealty, and the rest of us.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't believe fitz was implying plural anecdote (or even just me) as sufficient evidence.  If possible, please cite which "big corporations" have played major encouragement roles in the rise of the welfare state. 

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civic_Federation

Before the First World War this group played a role funding a lot of the research and lobbying of the early Progressive movement. Later in their decline they turned against the New Deal, but they are remembered first and foremost for their role in early Progressivism.

[birdman]

Ah, I thought you meant recently.

[De Selby]

Really now...

Because around here more than a few welfare reciepients drive around in Escalades and new caddys with rims that cost half of what my truck cost.

But I'm sure someone will be along to tell me it doesn't happen, that my own two eyes are lying to me.

How do you know the welfare recipient is the one who paid for the truck?  There's no welfare program in the country that hands out enough cash to buy an escalade outright; hard to see how thud get financing.

Maybe you only suspect that welfare money bought those cars?

[MicroBalrog]

Ah, I thought you meant recently.

And more recently, there are examples of companies and industries lobbying for regulations that benefit them and hurt small business (remember Bill Ruger?), subsidiies (remember Monsanto), etc. The banking industry is of course a famous example but you've covered it. It keeps happening - what do you think CNN, MSNBC, WaPo are owned by if not huge corporations?

[longeyes]

I'm not going to say that doesn't happen because I'm sure it does, but how many of those cases put every last cent of income they scrape up in addition to their various forms of welfare to the detriment of their kids and other obligations?  I think that is the more frequent case.

They could also be drug dealers....

More likely they collect welfare benefits while working off the books.

[zxcvbob]

Really now...
Because around here more than a few welfare reciepients drive around in Escalades and new caddys with rims that cost half of what my truck cost.

You're a racist!   

[birdman]

All of those examples are cases where the government is offering to increase the profits of those companies through direct transfer or tax reductions.  What my original post was asking was to cite an example of a case where a for profit company lobbied to increase governmental transfer or tac incentives to OTHERS and thus reap benefits indirectly of a welfare state.  Obviously a for profit company would be in favor of direct (subsidy/grant) or tax based (deductions, exemptions) for itself.  I cited those examples as "governmental encouragement" in my previous post.  I ask again, can you cite an example of a for profit company lobbying or otherwise attempting to encourage direct or indirect (tax based) transfer to others (it's customers even) and doing so NOT to improve it's own profitability?  My point is, any for profit entity (person or corporation) has the moral obligation to maximize it's return, be it personal wages, or profit for shareholders.  If there is a way to do that via governmental transfer, of course they will be in favor of it...however, their actions are the RESULT of the government putting in place such a system where that option is not only allowed, but increasingly available.  Through targeted tax code changes, a government can "pick the winners", and thus creates/increases/sustains a welfare state either individual or corporate.  My only point is that if a government did not already play favorites, or create a situation where profit maximization can occur through government interference, there would be little to no incentive for corporations to encourage it.  It was the original creation of the opportunity (true, encouraged by those who stood to profit) that created the situation (through the initial governmental interference) that then created an "it pays to play" situation w.r.t. Government lobbying...THAT is the problem.  In a zero-loophole case w.r.t tax code, AND a limited or zero subsidy situation, the profit maximization case for a company would shift to normal free market opportunities and incentives, which are not an encouragement of a welfare state.  True, it is a chicken/egg problem, but one cannot omit the encouraging role the government plays in all the current cases--it would be against the morality of profit maximization to do so.  However, since all we can, and should ask of any for profit entity is for it to maximize it's profits, our activities should be rated at the governmental side, as it is they not acting in the free-market/population best interest.  I don't want for profit entitiies to stop trying to maximize profits, I want to eliminate the governments role in encouraging the expansion of a welfare state to do so.

[De Selby]

How is getting money or benefits directly from the government any less welfare when a corporation does it??