Question to all US orgahs 40+ years and older

[Banquo's Ghost]

Asuming this is so, were I the patient, I'd kindly request the long term squad to please drop dead so the first-aid squad can administer my emergency attention.

Indeed.

And one might argue that in the last thirty years or so, the best long-term care plan was actually implemented by President Clinton, after which the recovering patient was summarily and ritually kneecapped by Bush.

[TinCow]

I'm only 32, but I'm very nervous. If they do not agree, this will be very bad for everyone. No one will escape. Maybe we can survive if the default only last a couple days before the cap is raised, but if goes on for longer than that the repercussions will be enormous. We will plunge right back into a recession much deeper than we pulled out of 2 years ago. And this time, the government will be completely incapable of taking action to bring us out of it.

I am currently having serious discussions with my wife and financial experts about when to pull my investments. I do not want to have market exposure on the day of the default.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sometimes I get the feeling DC is intentionally trying to mess this up, with the ultimate goal for both sides to be an exuberant tax rate and abundant regulation of peoples lives. I mean, eventually you will have to pay. If we pay less now, we pay more tomorrow, its a fairly simple concept. By manufacturing a trainwreck, you can save the people while making a power grab.

[Lemur]

Our government has three branches, and the legislative branch has two houses. So from a certain not-entirely-wrong perspective, the Republican party controls 1/6th of the Federal government right now. The friction and the danger, as I see it, is that the House is trying to govern -- with no comrpomisese or deals, dang it! -- while controlling 1/6th of the government. Hence the frustration, extremism, intransigence and insanity.

In the sixties and seventies it was the left wing that wanted to "burn it all down" in a fit of extremism and a dead-end pursuit of ideological purity. Today, in America, it's the right wing. Didn't somebody say "burn it all down" in this very thread?* Catyclysms sound pretty good when you're sold on the notion that the status quo is unfixable and terminal. That's when the apocalypse starts to sound sexy.

This is an entirely unnecessary and manufactured crisis. I guess Obama and the Republican leadership could have handled it more artfully, but the real blame belongs with the ideologues in the House. They're the ones who want to burn it all down.

-edit-

*My bad, it was in the original default thread.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Indeed.

And one might argue that in the last thirty years or so, the best long-term care plan was actually implemented by President Clinton, after which the recovering patient was summarily and ritually kneecapped by Bush.

Clinton managed to balance the budget, but I think long term entitlements (social security and medicare) still would've come up as they are now.

Ross Baker, professor of politics at Rutgers University, compared the US economy, with its huge debt, to a patient who needs both first aid and long-term care.

"The Democrats are the first-aid squad with their concern over the lack of money to stimulate the economy and produce jobs."

Good grief. Can we finally agree on the failure of Keynesian economic 'stimulation' by government spending?

More government spending to "create jobs" is a waste that just piles more debt on our children.

Programs need to be cut, and Obama is going against the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations on how much to cut (Obama wants a lot less) and the GOP is refusing to raise taxes.

Some perspective from a Pulitzer prize winning journalist;

Yes, our elected leaders are "feeling the heat, " but is this really fair? Should the public tar all of the apples in the political barrel with the same broad brush just because a few rotten eggs are crying over spilt milk? Of course not. The truth is that there are a great many politicians who are honest, trustworthy, intelligent, hard-working, decent and competent. Unfortunately, they are all located on the planet Zoombah. The ones here on Earth are dumpsterheads.
Consider, for example, their recent concerted effort to reduce the pesky federal budget deficit, which, shockingly, continues to mount despite the fact that both major political parties have issued sternly worded position papers against it. Day after day, week after week, the top brains of Congress and the Bush administration sat in a conference room, eating prune Danish supplied by the Prune Danish Division of the Bureau of Pastries of the U.S. Department of Refreshments at a cost of $2,350 per slice.
"What should we do about this pesky budget deficit?" the leaders asked, crumbs of concern dribbling from their mouths. "How can we reduce it? If only we had an idea! If only we could think
of . . . "
"SPEND LESS MONEY, YOU CRETINS!!" shouted a group of cockroaches, who had been listening from the floor and managed to figure out the solution despite the handicap of not being top political brains. Unfortunately, however, our political leadership is not responsive to cockroaches, unless of course they operate savings-and-loan institutions.

So the government does not appear to be working, and the public is sick of politicians, with their bloated campaign budgets and their slick, phony TV commercials. But the tide is starting to turn. That is the beauty of democracy. More and more politicians, finally getting the message, are using their bloated campaign budgets to produce slick, phony TV commercials in which they deny that they are politicians. You've probably seen these:
(The screen shows a candidate with his sleeves rolled up, pretending to talk with a group of factory workers.)
ANNOUNCER: Morton Lamprey is not a politician. Morton Lamprey has no interest in politics. That's why Morton Lamprey spent $287,000 to make this commercial.
CANDIDATE: I'm Morton Lamprey, and because I am not a politician I constantly hang out with ordinary workers, informally rolling up my sleeves and holding exactly the same opinions as they do about everything. Sometimes I even touch them. (He touches a worker.)
ANNOUNCER: Let's help Morton Lamprey continue the fight against insider "fat-cat" politics-as-usual that he's been waging for 17 consecutive terms in office.
(One of the workers throws a rock, which bounces harmlessly off the candidate's hair spray.)
CANDIDATE (to an aide): Have that worker shot.
ANNOUNCER: Morton Lamprey. He's just like you, assuming that you have a media adviser. Morton Lamprey. Notice how sincerely I say his name. I also do the Infiniti commercials.

From 1990 but relevant today.

More importantly, reaching the debt limit isn't bankruptcy or insolvency - it just means the US can't keep burrowing to fund the difference between what it takes in and what it spends, like maxing a credit card. The government will still have money to fund important programs, just not all programs.

CR

[Lemur]

More importantly, reaching the debt limit isn't bankruptcy or insolvency - it just means the US can't keep burrowing to fund the difference between what it takes in and what it spends, like maxing a credit card. The government will still have money to fund important programs, just not all programs.

When you find yourself far, far to the right of Grover Norquist, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Kinda similar to waking up one day and realizing you're way to the left of Abbie Hoffman. Alarm bells should sound.

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move....even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

[Crazed Rabbit]

When you find yourself far, far to the right of Grover Norquist, I think it's time to re-evaluate. Kinda similar to waking up one day and realizing you're way to the left of Abbie Hoffman. Alarm bells should sound.

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move....even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

Dramatic rhetoric notwithstanding, I'm to the left of Norquist on taxes. I don't share his fear of the government only being able to spend what it collects and not burrow indefinitely, but I'm not sure that's a left-right issue.

Depends on what is being created by the government. For the most part all this money being borrowed is being spent in indirect ways to create jobs. Giving more money to those unemployed is them "creating jobs" because more money to unemployed will spur demand which will spur more production which will open more jobs. However, that isn't exactly how it works because people don't spend like they should.

Now if they had actually used all this debt to restore the nation's highway system, bridges and did an overhaul for a new electrical grid capable of handling and directing intermittent sources of renewable energy in a smart manner, we would be in a better position because we would have created something that actually has value and would actually be generating revenue for many decades.

Even with the best investments it's not as efficient as individuals spending their money on what they decide they want. Even improved infrastructure is an imposition of whatever log-rolling compromise a bunch of politicians decided on. If infrastructure improvements are needed and not just a nice thing to have, that's different. But to create jobs, a federal plan for 300 million people is not efficient.

CR

[Papewaio]

Surely there is some things that a large organisation has an advantage in doing. After all in modern economies we are more specialist's then jack of all trades. So unless you are an oddbody member it is unlikely that you belong to a community of diverse skill sets. This puts groups ie companies and government in an advantageous position. Economies of scale can also help larger organisations.

What sets the difference is the management of those large organisations to see which one makes the most benefits of the money and teams it overlooks. And it's not which corporate badge, logo or trademark, or which side of politics as much as which organisation is accountable for its actions for both reward and punishment.

If it is actually infrastructure it should have a net benefit to the economy/well being of those who paid for it ie dams, roads, hospitals. I'd look at infrastructure that is investing in the countries future. Australia at the moment is spending $42 Billion (which since we have a population of 22 million about $600 Billion in US terms of cost per person) in fibre to the home infrastructure. That will have benefits in jobs, internet speed, and then 2nd and 3rd tier economic benefits (1st Tier ISP, 2nd Tier @ home ecommerce and remote workers, 3rd Tier being those who are benefiting out of supporting that economy ie post workers shipping the physical goods etc). Could it be done by business? Yeap. Would they ignore the Outback and further polarise the city vs the bush yeap. This is Australia tax payer money paying for an egalitarian solution.

Other ways to implement infrastructure well look at the X Prizes for potential alternatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even with the best investments it's not as efficient as individuals spending their money on what they decide they want. Even improved infrastructure is an imposition of whatever log-rolling compromise a bunch of politicians decided on. If infrastructure improvements are needed and not just a nice thing to have, that's different. But to create jobs, a federal plan for 300 million people is not efficient.

CR

The federal plan isn't for 300 million people it is for a large section unemployed which is only around 10% of the population.

The first sentence is a moot point. Infrastructure isn't really something that can be handled by the private sector. No company wants to use the capital to expand infrastructure. This is why the US has some of the crappiest internet speeds in the entire western world even though the damn thing was invented here.

Infrastructure is always needed. It is impossible to build more infrastructure than there is demand for it because people quickly utilize any "extra" infrastructure by using it more.

At this point, it is not a matter of efficient, even though the efficiency is all moot for the reasons I just explained. We have people who need jobs, we have business who want more demand, we have work improving the country that needs to be done. Open these jobs up, unemployment will go down, demand will rise and when the infrastructure jobs are done, private sector will be opening their jobs back up to fulfill the demand.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good grief. Can we finally agree on the failure of Keynesian economic 'stimulation' by government spending?

More government spending to "create jobs" is a waste that just piles more debt on our children.

Depends on what is being created by the government. For the most part all this money being borrowed is being spent in indirect ways to create jobs. Giving more money to those unemployed is them "creating jobs" because more money to unemployed will spur demand which will spur more production which will open more jobs. However, that isn't exactly how it works because people don't spend like they should.

Now if they had actually used all this debt to restore the nation's highway system, bridges and did an overhaul for a new electrical grid capable of handling and directing intermittent sources of renewable energy in a smart manner, we would be in a better position because we would have created something that actually has value and would actually be generating revenue for many decades.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Depends on what is being created by the government. For the most part all this money being borrowed is being spent in indirect ways to create jobs. Giving more money to those unemployed is them "creating jobs" because more money to unemployed will spur demand which will spur more production which will open more jobs. However, that isn't exactly how it works because people don't spend like they should.Now if they had actually used all this debt to restore the nation's highway system, bridges and did an overhaul for a new electrical grid capable of handling and directing intermittent sources of renewable energy in a smart manner, we would be in a better position because we would have created something that actually has value and would actually be generating revenue for many decades.

I likes the second paragraph Infrastructure is investment in generating equity. This is whats governments should be doing with our money. Digitization of communications, roadways, high speed rail. Yet we put the majority of money into non equity generating projects. Things like social security, Medicare, general welfare. Things that keep unproductive members of society alive longer and consume equity. Sure, there is a benefit, but it has gone beyond a sensible balance. We should use social security as a compassionate device, not what it has become; a vehicle for fat and rich early retirees to do nothing for the rest of their miserable, burdensome and long lives. It should be used to provide for people who would otherwise die.

[Strike For The South]

I likes the second paragraph Infrastructure is investment in generating equity. This is whats governments should be doing with our money. Digitization of communications, roadways, high speed rail. Yet we put the majority of money into non equity generating projects. Things like social security, Medicare, general welfare. Things that keep unproductive members of society alive longer and consume equity. Sure, there is a benefit, but it has gone beyond a sensible balance. We should use social security as a compassionate device, not what it has become; a vehicle for fat and rich early retirees to do nothing for the rest of their miserable, burdensome and long lives. It should be used to provide for people who would otherwise die.

I can garuntee you that is not how social security being used

Your post is indicative of the larger problem. Certainly the US has debt problem but it is by no means insurmountable, it really wouldn't even be that painful to implent some of the wilder democratic schemes. However the debt ceiling has now become the pulpit from which the right wing tea kettle begins to boil over. The fact we can't come to an agreement on the debt ceiling is not a sign we have spent to much, it is only a sign people who have no idea what they are talking about have somehow grabbed the rudder of political debate in this country. I am even hesitant to call it debate at this point more like a drunken, backwoods game of chicken.

Obama has basically given the GOP everything and it still isn't good enough. at any other time during the lasty 50 years this would've been a great political victory but the problem now is two fold. Boehner and some of the other GOP have caricutered Obama to the point where any deal with him is tantamount to treason. The more moderate and sensible GOP is being held hostage by Ayn Rand fanboys and pissed off white people who don't really understand what it is there mad about, they just know it has something to do with money.

The problem is the tea party has no real ideas. The faux libertarinism they propagate will not work for the worlds sole hyperpower populated by 300,000,000 people. I'm willing to listen to cuts, I want their to be cuts. But don't tell me NO soley based on some shaky idelogical bullet points. Don't drive us into the ground simply becuase you need to dance with the girl that brung ya.

Boehner has not been shrewd, he is being held at gunpoint by nutjobs

don't hate Obama, he's been doing a pretty decent job, given the circumstances. I think quite a few people don't like what the united states has become. We've doused ourselves in gasoline and given the match to those same people. You live once, im curious to see what will happen when we default or force a restructuring. We still have some semblance of infrastructure and a large workforce. People should be working for half of their current wages. And they will, once the federal government gets furloughed for a few years. It is time to play hardball with the american laxplayer.Sell your houses, turn off your tvs and lose some weight. You want fair completion in the global economy? Prepare to meet the global worker on their level.

What have we become? A country that sold out the middle class to the 1% of America that can donate infinty money to politics? Why should people be working for half the current wages? What happens if you work for half your current wages based on some arbatrariy talking point?

America destroys the third world in every measure of economic devolpment that's why (wait for it) We're a 1st world country. The problem is we aren't taxed high enough and we spend to much, both things which are eaisly rectafaible

This does not have to be some end of the line wake up call that sends us into anarchy

I must ask, Where are all the adults?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not sure what the problem is, we don't have the growth potential or current growth to match our need for more debt. We say we need to increase the federal retirement age and we are vilified. We say that we want cuts to spending at a ratio with "revenue increase" to meet or exceed 3:1. We say that all increases to revenue must be through a sensible reformation of the tax code.

We need to see these changes before we will use our popularly elected authority to create more debt. The majority are not being un-sensible. The majority will get their way s they have in the past. Boehner is a good negotiator and a moderate individual. I have confidence that the good cop/bad cop routine will work prior to the deadline with a deal exceeding the 3:1 ratio. If it does not, we will see major cuts to government. There is a time for coming together politics and a time for balls to the grindstone politics. Now is the grindstone.

[Major Robert Dump]

@ Strike:
Since you are obviously unprepared for the coming apocolypse, I will stockpile some extra water and Chunky Soup at my Red River compound. Pls bring homeade Tamales. KTHNX

[Kralizec]

Indeed.

And one might argue that in the last thirty years or so, the best long-term care plan was actually implemented by President Clinton, after which the recovering patient was summarily and ritually kneecapped by Bush.

Clinton only managed to get a surplus in two of the eight years he was in office. It's rather telling that his administration is cited as an example of fiscal responsibility.

EDIT: I'm only 24 but my guess is that both sides are consciously exploiting all the time they have to get the most out of it. Shortly before the deadline Obama and the HoR republicans will somehow reach a compromise and the debt ceiling will be raised.

[drone]

Clinton only managed to get a surplus in two of the eight years he was in office. It's rather telling that his administration is cited as an example of fiscal responsibility.

And he only got that because Bush 41 sacrificed his second term by doing the right thing.

[PanzerJaeger]

A broken system...

Indeed, the deal negotiated Sunday - after weeks of brinksmanship - would leave until later the big problems such as Social Security and Medicare, whose finances must be overhauled as the population ages.

Deficits would continue for the coming decade, and the debt would continue to rise - just not as much as if there is no deal.

Obama struggled throughout the weeks of clashes.

He came to the debt debate late. After spending the first two years of his term pushing greater federal spending to fight the effects of a deep recession, he largely ignored recommendations to cut deficits by his own bipartisan commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, and did not propose any significant deficit reductions in his Feb. 1 budget proposal to Congress. His budget envisioned the debt rising by $9 trillion over 10 years.

And when he first asked Congress to increase the government's debt ceiling - to allow more borrowing to pay bills already in the pipeline - he insisted it be done without any conditions as it had been done routinely for decades.

Only after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives demanded offsetting spending cuts over the next 10 years to match any increase in the debt ceiling did Obama change course and enter negotiations.

He pressed for tax increases along with spending cuts, but did not prevail. After Republicans walked out of White House talks claiming they could not negotiate with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, a veteran of the Senate, stepped in.

"The perception is that the president has abrogated leadership," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political scientist at the University of Southern California. "He lost it when he sort of blew off the Bowles-Simpson commission. He could have used it as a starting point."

Also, Obama was somewhat captive to the left wing of the Democratic Party, knowing his approval ratings are low and that he'll need a big turnout from liberals in what could be a very close re-election contest next year.

Thus, when he and the Republicans appeared close to a deal more than a week ago - one that included Republican approval of $800 billion in increased tax revenues over 10 years - Obama came under pressure to make the package more acceptable to liberal Democrats. He proposed adding $400 billion more in taxes - or scaling back cuts in entitlement spending. The Republicans broke off the talks.

At the same time, Obama found himself unable to move the public.

Polls showed a majority of Americans sided with him in pressing for higher taxes from wealthy Americans as part of any deal. Yet despite frequent public appearances to press that approach, Obama saw his approval rating drop to 40 percent last week in the Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency. It had reached 50 percent in June.

"When he's gone out front, he's dropped even further, which gives him even less leverage," said George Edwards, a scholar of the presidency at Texas A&M University.

Assuming they can get the deal through Congress, Republicans can claim some success at forcing the government to start reining in spending.

[Papewaio]

Bigger problem is this is just about shuffling how much debt and talking about reining it in. Leaves two massive problems leftover:
Reality of getting a handle of the debt and working it down.
Perception of how well the US is functioning economically has lost so much gloss that there are suggestions in the market that the US will lose its AAA rating because of cracks appearing. Unfortunately the markets are based more on perception then reality.

The reality is neo-industrial countries are information and service based. Thus the US is in very good shape, all we are presently seeing is the attempts to slough off the dead skin of industries that are out of date or individual companies that aren't performing. One thing that would have been better for the budget and the US in the long term may have been not intervening so heavily with corporations, that includes welfare for ones that are 'too big' to fail... or having learnt the lesson, limit corporations to being smaller then that size and foster more competition.

Maybe have a two types of companies. Much like some banks get government backing... if you self limit your corporation size to a competitive level then you get government bailouts if a nationwide disaster happens... if you want to go for broke, have less controls (laws, size controls, unlimited CEO payrolls etc) then you can have a much larger company but it has to stand on its own two feet.

[Centurion1]

Bigger problem is this is just about shuffling how much debt and talking about reining it in. Leaves two massive problems leftover:
Reality of getting a handle of the debt and working it down.
Perception of how well the US is functioning economically has lost so much gloss that there are suggestions in the market that the US will lose its AAA rating because of cracks appearing. Unfortunately the markets are based more on perception then reality.

The reality is neo-industrial countries are information and service based. Thus the US is in very good shape, all we are presently seeing is the attempts to slough off the dead skin of industries that are out of date or individual companies that aren't performing. One thing that would have been better for the budget and the US in the long term may have been not intervening so heavily with corporations, that includes welfare for ones that are 'too big' to fail... or having learnt the lesson, limit corporations to being smaller then that size and foster more competition.

Maybe have a two types of companies. Much like some banks get government backing... if you self limit your corporation size to a competitive level then you get government bailouts if a nationwide disaster happens... if you want to go for broke, have less controls (laws, size controls, unlimited CEO payrolls etc) then you can have a much larger company but it has to stand on its own two feet.

The ultimate irony is that no single corporation in the US at this moment is truly too big too fail....... Ford, GM, etc. If they went bankrupt it wouldn't destroy the United States. None of the corporation bailouts were truly necessary to the economic safety of the USA. Corporations and businesses fail and are either reborn from the ashes or disappear. This is the nature of the capitalistic system. A failing business simply creates a vacuum which another entity moves into or grows into.

[Major Robert Dump]

Tell that to the Feds.