Now that this problem is solved we can grow the debt infinitely and get back to watching Wheel of Fortune.
Growing increasingly pessimistic about the prospects for a deal that would raise the debt ceiling, Democratic senators are revisiting a solution to the crisis that rests on a simple proposition: The debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional.
“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law… shall not be questioned,” reads the 14th Amendment.
“This is an issue that’s been raised in some private debate between senators as to whether in fact we can default, or whether that provision of the Constitution can be held up as preventing default,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), an attorney, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. “I don’t think, as of a couple weeks ago, when this was first raised, it was seen as a pressing option. But I’ll tell you that it’s going to get a pretty strong second look as a way of saying, ‘Is there some way to save us from ourselves?'”
By declaring the debt ceiling unconstitutional, the White House could continue to meet its financial obligations, leaving Tea Party-backed Republicans in the difficult position of arguing against the plain wording of the Constitution. Bipartisan negotiators are debating the size of the cuts, now in the trillions, that will come along with raising the debt ceiling.
All politicians “warn” about everything that is obvious and well known: then go ahead and act as they do. They rely on short memories and the electorate not paying attention all with the willing ineptness of our media.
Arguing about “the past” is mostly a waste of time isn’t it? Its worthy if there is a point behind it? Yes, very specific points not to “lay blame” on one party or another but rather to show what policies work in what way and so forth.
Take Ryans voucher program for MediCare. It changes the basic nature of the program from a defined benefit to a defined contribution==total screw job against 99% of the public. Now the past is relevant: should we believe Ryan when he says his intent is to “save” MediCare? Of course not. Only a fool cares what ANY politicians “INTENT” is.
Look at the numbers. Believe the numbers.
Universal healthcare.
#67
#48,
Thomas, look at the numbers above. You’ll see that under Clinton, there was a surplus in 98-01.
Again, not possible. You cannot run a surplus while your debt level goes up.. It simply is not possible. It is talking out of your tokhes. It means you are not accounting for something. Clinton DID spend more than he brought in if you exclude revenue from selling bonds to other government agencies (i.e., moving money around).
#73,
Thomas,
As I said, if you don’t like the numbers, take it up with the government. It came from their websites.
It’s possible that your numbers are including something that just makes it look worse.
#74–Pedro==you say: “#72 Obamacare is a huge failure. Maybe that’s the goal; it will certainly help bring the US economy down while making people unhappy about not having their needs covered thus wanting more from the government. ////
Is having Obamacare continue as it is any different than terminating it now? Any practical difference?
Dems = support Obamacare
Pukes = want to end Obamacare.
Any difference at all?
Any practical difference?
What does the word “practical” mean in your understanding?
Just wondering how long you will maintain a position even you “know” is wrong just because the words past your lips.
Intelligent = able to see the differences
Honest = able to state the differences.
Ha, ha.
Speaking of intelligence, honesty, and a willingness to address the issues:
Maintaining our for profit healthcare system is KILLING American prosperity as well. Everything that is “for profit” sucks resources away from the sick and the healthy who need preventative care putting such funds into the pockets of corporate stakeholders.
It is consuming more and more of our GDP–as bad as government itself in this regard. It is unsustainable yet all the Pukes can do is recommend more for profit solutions.
CHANGE IS NEEDED.
Obamacare?==certainly not. A compromise forced by Pukes in their loyalty to our corporate overlords.
Solution: just what the rest of the world has done to the comfort and approval of their citizens and the financial stability of their societies===single payer. Take the best from the 21-25 countries that spend half as much as we do with better outcomes and build the best healthcare system in the world.
We can do it if the PUKES get out of the way.
Failure vs Success. Any difference?
Practical or otherwise?
any intelligence/honesty?
We’ll wait.
#75
As I said, if you don’t like the numbers, take it up with the government. It came from their websites.
It’s possible that your numbers are including something that just makes it look worse.
First, there is no possible reason that the government might have to make the problem look as bad as it right? The government wouldn’t try to be deceptive would it? Nah. Impossible. Second, you need to look at ALL the numbers which are all provided by the CBO. The government tries to bury information about the intergovernmental debt because it would make the situation look as bad as it really is.
Here’s a good article about the myth of the Clinton surplus:
http://craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Cost of our discretionary wars: 4 Trillion.
Of “news” to me is the 1 Trillion Dollar bill for veteran healthcare caused by these wars.
Should “cost” be any issue at all in these decisions?
Back to Pedro: did I ask you or some other retard whether or not “if” we achieve a balanced budget and THEN decide to go to war, should we raise taxes to cover those Trillion Dollar commitments==or cut programs in an otherwise balanced budget?
Would the choices make any difference?
any practical difference?
any difference at all?
intelligence/honesty????
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-trillion-130934180.html
#78,
Thomas,
Not sure if it would or not. The numbers I found, when taken in aggregate show that the nation had more income under Bush II and not Clinton. If your debt numbers were more accurate than the ones I found, it would make the difference more substantial, not less.
#78
Does your income figures include intergovernmental borrowing? Borrowing money does not count as revenue but it does according to the government.
The two standard accounting methods are cash and accrual.
then add governmental.
I’d think “borrowing” would add to revenue just as it would add to debt? Easy to see how games can/are played here to everyone’s dismay?
#82,
Thomas,
I don’t recall.
If the borrowing _was_ considered revenue, and it was more than the interest payment, it would make the debt increase while at the same time appearing to reduce the deficit for the year.
I’ll have to rework my table taking that into account and get a more accurate aggregate total.
Dear Editor:
I really must implore you to CENSOR Pedro. His categorizing people who think there is a difference between night and day, up and down, success and failure, tax cuts and tax hikes, etc ad naseum as “sheeple” is just too vulgar/cutting/outrageous to contemplate within this blog of current events.
Think of the children!!!!!
PS–how come you guys never censor anyone I think should be?……and where is Alfie??? My only goal is to provide balms of various salts to the emotionally crippled. Isn’t that the Christian thing to do we are all aiming at?
Stay thirsty my friends.
#70, Thomas,
Bush did warn about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac multiple times.
A right wing nut Bush apologist claim. Please enlighten us and give us a cite of those remarks.
… again, not possible. You cannot run a surplus while your debt level goes up.. It simply is not possible. It is talking out of your tokhes. It means you are not accounting for something. Clinton DID spend more than he brought in if you exclude revenue from selling bonds to other government agencies (i.e., moving money around).
Wrong. It is quite easy to watch your debt go up as you balance your budget. Just don’t pay down your debt.
Being in denial is YOUR problem. Factcheck has been widely acknowledged as being a fair and honest organization. You haven’t offered anything to dispute their findings.
Seems to me one of the founding father warned about foreign entanglements. But that hasn’t stopped most of the US Congress coming to the aid of many foreign powers, and siding with Israel against the Arab world, in general. And spending 100s of billions all over the world to “nation build”. Where the hell is that, anywhere in the US Constitution? Then there’s the manned space program. Another pretty, but expensive toy, that mainly give the defense contractors an extra something in their wallets, between weapons contracts and wars. Also NOT in the Constitution (subsiding of government contractors during lean times). And I like to know what amendment legalized Social Security and Medicare? Not that these are bad ideas, but amendment reference doesn’t seem to have those. So did the US Congress just red line that expense thru without a legal check?
Interesting that this “don’t question the debt” part of section 4, appears in 14th amendment. Many years ago there was something about an earlier 13th Amendment, that was nearly ratified, concerning Presidents having foreign ties. It was lost during the Civil War, and then Lincoln came up with the “anti-slavery” 13th Amendment, in its place. Then this 14th Amendment even prevented the previous nearly ratified Amendment from being number 14. And so it was never heard from again. Neat cover up job.
#88
Wrong. It is quite easy to watch your debt go up as you balance your budget. Just don’t pay down your debt.
You’ve been duped. The government borrowed from itself and claimed it to be revenue. You cannot balance your budget while increasing your debt load which was created by borrowing from yourself. In this case, FactCheck is absolutely totally wrong. They are parroting the line by the White House and CBO which entirely ignores intergovernmental debt. They are using voodoo accounting to ignore a huge swath of liabilities. If a corporatation tried that stunt, it would be sued into non-existence. Check the last link I provide. That guy completely busts this idea that we ran a surplus during Clinton’s Presidency. It hasn’t happen since Eisenhower. It is simply illogical to state that we had a surplus but borrowed more to pay for it. It is akin to claiming you have a surplus by doing a balance transfer from your credit card.
#88
Btw, that same guy wrote another article specifically to address the Fact Check mistake:
http://craigsteiner.us/articles/30
#67
Here is a decent chart showing variations in both gov revenues and expenditures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
This does support the conclusion that the Revenue/GDP doesn’t move by a lot of points. Because we are talking about a 14T economy each point happens to be REALLY BIG. Be off by a bit over an extended period of time and it adds up dramatically.
I get how the effective tax rate(ETR column) is applicable to figuring individual tax burdens, but not to the whole population. Since I’m not exactly sure how you’d figure this over a population, or how the ability of payers to engage in tax arbitrage would effect the result… I’m going to have to punt.
Interesting.
#84
“Good sheeple! Blame the other team for your team’s shortcomings. Obamacare sucks not because of the compromises, but because from the beginning it was ill conceived”
Sure, Obama is a turd. Before the debate was started Obama gave up on continuing the insurance industry exemption from the anti-competitive practices laws that exist for other industries, killed the public option and caving on re-importation of drugs from Canada( or hard bargaining from Medicare/Medicaid/VA on bulk drug purchases( maybe we ought to hire some wal-mart folks to teach the gov how a big purchaser has serious leverage)).
Just because a nominal Dem happily does the work of the old GOP, while the new GOP goes completely insane, doesn’t mean I agree with the guy.
#80
I had not considered current expanded VA expenditures in the my claim of ~3T for the total wars cost. I had was looking only at the direct costs, as described by the CBO, plus overages in the regular defense budget that are outside of the historical norm.
You’re right by a mile.
I’d bet there is big extra money going to education programs and basic R&D. Not to mention the secret budget stuff…
Our business is empire, and business is REALLY bad.
#93,
Chris,
I get how the effective tax rate(ETR column) is applicable to figuring individual tax burdens, but not to the whole population.
IMO, this is more appropriate to show that raising taxes on a selected few or dropping them on a selected few doesn’t do much in the grand scheme of things. They are only ever going to get around 21% from the total payroll of the population.
This is a “can’t see the forest for the trees” sort of thing because it keeps people arguing about taxing the rich or helping the poor.
I find it interesting the government even bothers to calculate it. I wonder if there is some mass psychological factor that would negatively affect the nation should that number rise too high.
I find it astounding that value doesn’t vary more than a percentage point of two (even during the 50’s when the rich were taxed at the so-called 90% mark — the ETR was closer to 23% for that bracket). It’s almost like it is planned that way.
Shrug. I no longer pay special attention to arguments about taxes except to point out the ETR. We’ve been arguing about taxes since I was kid. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE and that ETR proves it.
I now look at spending.
Good thing I poured in a crapload of money I made in my deployments into gold when it was $500-750 an ounce (I bought over $75k worth) which has gone up way more than any of my retirement accounts… and I also get 100% VA disability lol.
>>Bush did warn about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac multiple times.
>A right wing nut Bush apologist claim. Please enlighten us and give us a cite of those remarks.
http://nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts
On top of that, you had a warning in the April 2001 budget proposal of the president that Fannie and Freddie were at risk.
And in 2004m the Democrats were writing to the President against his proposal which you say is nonexistent.
“We have been concerned that the Administration’s legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken
affordable housing performance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While
the GSEs’ affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and
soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the
expense of affordable housing.
We have been led to conclude that the Administration does not appreciate the importance of the
GSE’s affordable housing mission,
http://redstate.com/moe_lane/files/2010/09/economic-reality.pdf
#99, The internet is turning out to be great at wiping the rose colored smudge off of people’s glasses.
#96 I’m a very practical guy. Why do you tax the rich?
It’s like when they asked Willie Sutton why he robbed banks?
Because that’s where the money is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Sutton
#101,
Chris,
Oh, I agree that is why they want to tax them. But it won’t make a hill of beans. They tax, they put in deductions. The remove deductions, they drop the tax.
21%. That’s it.