News Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

[WhoWee]

8. Starting positions aren't necessarily equally reasonable. If you want to sell me something for $1 and I want to buy it for $.50, a cut-it-down-the-middle compromise requires me offering $0 to buy it. That's obviously absurd, but if $.50 actually is a reasonable price, then no matter what I offer for a starting point, you're going to have to come down further because you picked a ridiculously high starting position.

Oversimplifying with propaganda techniques doesn't help here. The issues really are more complicated.

This sums up the problem with the baseline discussion - doesn't it?

 

[mheslep]

... Moreover, if the US don't pay on time just _once_, future interest on debt will go up, because of the added risk, and they will have a bigger problem...

That's not necessarily true either. There are counter examples, especially Russia. Sovereign debt is not the same as individual credit ratings.

...The US government spends $3.5 trillion - failure to raise the debt ceiling, or/and increase taxes, will have major consequences.

Yes I agree, just not in the manner or to the degree you originally posted.

 

[mheslep]

Who on the right does not want to hurt the elderly etc.? Easy way to tell. Find out if they would vote to raise the ss eligibility age. In my mind, that would be a qualifier. Ivan is a wise old owl, You tell them Ivan.

Using that logic: Given that the SS, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are mathematically bound to collapse if allowed to continue in their present form, then the easy way to tell who wants to hurt the elderly etc is to find out who wants these programs to continue just the way they are now.

 

[mheslep]

I got the impression that the left was willing to compromise on cutting spending, but that the right is not willing to compromise taxing the rich. Did I get it right?

So far I have seen no specific cut proposals from *any* Democratic leaders in the time period surrounding this debate. None. Maybe I've missed it. You? Anyone? Boener on the other hand announced at least a tax revenue increase proposal, though it too is short on specifics:

"Last Sunday, I thought there was an agreement of $800 billion [ten years] in new revenue coming from a flatter, fairer tax system," Mr. Boehner said.

 

[SixNein]

Well it's certainly often framed that way

The shoe fits.

The republicans have signed a pledge to not raise taxes no matter what.

 

[Newai]

So far I have seen no specific cut proposals from *any* Democratic leaders in the time period surrounding this debate. None. Maybe I've missed it. You? Anyone? Boener on the other hand announced at least a tax revenue increase proposal, though it too is short on specifics:

By that point, Obama had made nearly-unthinkable concessions for a Democratic president.

He agreed to $1.2 trillion cuts in discretionary spending, and almost $250 billion in cuts to Medicare, including changing the eligibility age, eliminating certain supplemental insurance policies and cutting back on some health provider payments. He agreed to a new inflation calculator that would affect Social Security recipients. And he committed to changes to Social Security in order to make the program solvent.

http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:

The White House always viewed the details as in flux: as the amount of cuts rose, Obama sought to balance that politically with more revenues. White House aides say the push for $400 billion in additional revenues was never intended to be a make-or-break demand, but more along the lines of hoping for some give on Boehner’s part.

Boehner, however, considered the pitch as an attempt to move the goalposts late in the game.

Boehner was willing to accept a revenue baseline of about $800 billion above what taxes would be if all the current Bush-era tax breaks were extended, a real concession on his part. At a White House meeting last Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner signed off, Republicans said, on the Boehner proposal — which was a concession in turn by the administration since it had shot for a higher target.

 

[SixNein]

http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:

Not to mention that health care reform was dragged back into the discussion.

http://www.salon.com/technology/how...7/22/health_care_reform_and_the_debt_ceiling/

 

[Hurkyl]

The shoe fits.

The republicans have signed a pledge to not raise taxes no matter what.

Can you source that? No offense, but I don't trust your summary to be the entire truth.

 

[Newai]

Can you source that? No offense, but I don't trust your summary to be the entire truth.

I was curious about that claim, too. This is all I found so far:

As congressional leaders prepared to head to the White House for a bipartisan meeting Thursday morning to discuss the debt limit, House Speaker John Boehner continued to insist that tax increases are off the table and said that despite weeks of negotiations there still is no agreement to increase the statutory debt limit.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/boehner-republicans-wont-increase-taxes-still-no-deal.html
Reported on July 07, 2011

 

[WhoWee]

http://news.yahoo.com/phone-tag-wrong-numbers-collapse-debt-talks-060105421.html

Maybe not proposals exactly, but agreeing to cuts is work toward middle ground. And this is the time when Boehner walked out.

And in fairness:

Boehner wants to solve the problem in Congress at this point - I imagine Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree?

 

[MarcoD]

That's not necessarily true either. There are counter examples, especially Russia. Sovereign debt is not the same as individual credit ratings.

Yes I agree, just not in the manner or to the degree you originally posted.

Russia had bad management but they had one thing working for them: They are an oil producing state with a large trade surplus. If they take a hit because of mismanagement, a lot of stuff recovers soon because everybody knows that money will be pouring in no matter what.

I responded to what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised. I think a default in that scenario is more than likely. People, and I, still believe that the US will not default _but_ _only_ _because_ they have no other option than to raise the ceiling and move towards more austerity. But, it doesn't mean that it can't happen.

As I said before, stating that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will not result in default is equivalent to saying that Greece wouldn't default on its debt since they also could just choose not to pay the wages.

The republican/democrat debate is comparable to a married couple which borrowed too much and can't agree on how to make ends meet. But the banks are still inclined to borrow more money, and the couple is married so they'll need to -and probably will- work it out no matter what.

 

[Newai]

Boehner wants to solve the problem in Congress at this point - I imagine Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi agree?

I was just trying to answer your question.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not exactly. You could exchange them for an amount of gold that did not double in value yearly.

was it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note

there is no need to make exceptions. no United States notes should be exchangeable for gold, make it all fiat money.

the next time they issue a round of "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing" ", they should not spend it into the banks, but into the national budget. pay off some of the debt and devalue everyone's currency at the same time without giving any preferential treatment to wall street.

 

[OmCheeto]

I was curious about that claim, too. ...

Me three. Here's what I found:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...rquists-pledge-is-a-colossal-failure/242340/"
Jul 22 2011
In 1986, Grover Norquist and his organization, Americans for Tax Reform, created the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," which he describes as "a simple, written commitment by a candidate or elected official that he or she will oppose, and vote against, tax increases."

and some more:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/07/grover-norquist-tax-pledge.html"
July 24, 2011
...
The pledge not to raise taxes, penned by Norquist in 1986, has ensnared more than two hundred and fifty members of the current House and Senate.

...

There you go. They signed a pledge. Kind of like the "pledge of allegiance" we used to say every morning in grade school, only a bit different. Hmmm... I think I'd call this one; "The pledge of **** you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance" was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided against it - knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

I learn something new every day.

 

[WhoWee]

Me three. Here's what I found:

and some more:

There you go. They signed a pledge. Kind of like the "pledge of allegiance" we used to say every morning in grade school, only a bit different. Hmmm... I think I'd call this one; "The pledge of **** you."

I learn something new every day.

Quite the smoking gun - what did they do - sit in a treehouse and make a blood oath?

 

[hbjon]

Using that logic: Given that the SS, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are mathematically bound to collapse if allowed to continue in their present form, then the easy way to tell who wants to hurt the elderly etc is to find out who wants these programs to continue just the way they are now.

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

 

[WhoWee]

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

We've been over this in other threads - Social Security has been expanded by the politicians to include more people under the age of 65 AND the politicians have used the Social Security funds to pay for other programs - left an IOU.

 

[SixNein]

We've been over this in other threads - Social Security has been expanded by the politicians to include more people under the age of 65 AND the politicians have used the Social Security funds to pay for other programs - left an IOU.

You mean surplus funds.

 

[OmCheeto]

Quite the smoking gun - what did they do - sit in a treehouse and make a blood oath?

I don't know.
And I don't know about the gun, but someone has been smoking something.

July 22, 2011
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president"
I mean, the debt ceiling, that’s a formality. Historically, this has not even been an issue. It’s an unpleasant vote but it’s been a routine vote that Congress does periodically. It was raised 18 times when Ronald Reagan was President. Ronald Reagan said default is not an option, that it would be hugely damaging to the prestige of the United States and we shouldn’t even consider it. So that’s the easy part. We should have done that six months ago.

Oh now that's not fair. This will only be Obama's http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist07z3.xls" .

Ha! It's no wonder I skipped following politics for nearly 30 years:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/debt-ceiling-limits-through-the-ages/"

Although the routine increase in the debt ceiling was essential to meet Government obligations already incurred, the vote is traditionally delayed to the 11th hour, with the minority party accusing the party in power of spendthrift ways.”

That quote may surprise you. It comes from the NY Times, Sept. 30, 1981, defending President Reagan and blaming the Democrats in Congress for playing games with the debt ceiling.

The only thing that changes are the faces.

 

[WhoWee]

You mean surplus funds.

Sure - it's the surplus that is raided each year - if I recall correctly, the Social Security Trust Fund SHOULD have close to $3Trillion in it's coffers right now.

Instead of confidence and solvency in the system - we have Presidential speeches like this on the topic:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/debt-crisis-punctures-social-security-trust-fund-myth
""I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd," President Obama warned CBS Evening News viewers about Social Security Tuesday night. "There may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.""

 

[SixNein]

There is one program that needs to continue as is. And that is
Social Security. Workers have sacrificed part of their
pay for most of their entire working lives. That piece
of pie was invested in their own retirement. And the agreement
was that at age 65, they would be able to receive that money back
in monthly installments to support themselves with and live
a dignified life. When you have worked manual labor, that is
physically demanding. And the body simply wears down in most cases.
When one reaches their sixties, they deserve to retire and do
crossword puzzles. Since inflation is an increase in the amount of
money it takes to buy the same groceries from one year to the next,
there needs to be a cost of living increase as well. This is Social
Security. Medicare and Medicaide are different programs that are
separate from SS. There is a lot of abuse and corruption involving
these two programs. Americans are tough, they don't need to suck on
the tax-payers nipple for pain relief. They can either take the pain,
or buy the pills with their own money immho. hbjon

The entire debate is tainted with ideology. Social security is a sound program that is projected to take in more than pay out till 2037. Even if the projections hold up 26 years from now at the predicted break even point, there are many minor changes that can correct the issue. People who bring up social security are doing so because of their ideology, or they think they can profit from a privatization of it.

As far as debt goes, I have yet to see anyone be entirely honest about it. All I see is politicians gearing up for a new election cycle, and voters repeating tiresome talking points that they heard on radio or tv. Montesquieu once said that republics die in luxury.

 

[WhoWee]

The entire debate is tainted with ideology. Social security is a sound program that is projected to take in more than pay out till 2037. Even if the projections hold up 26 years from now at the predicted break even point, there are many minor changes that can correct the issue. People who bring up social security are doing so because of their ideology, or they think they can profit from a privatization of it.

As far as debt goes, I have yet to see anyone be entirely honest about it. All I see is politicians gearing up for a new election cycle, and voters repeating tiresome talking points that they heard on radio or tv. Montesquieu once said that republics die in luxury.

Given the politicians raid the surplus funds and still need to borrow additional outside funds to meet their bloated spending requirements - about 42% of the cash flow is from debt - there is a problem that needs to be solved. Social Security is not secure.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sure - it's the surplus that is raided each year - if I recall correctly, the Social Security Trust Fund SHOULD have close to $3Trillion in it's coffers right now.

Instead of confidence and solvency in the system - we have Presidential speeches like this on the topic:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/07/debt-crisis-punctures-social-security-trust-fund-myth

Interesting article.

The reality is that the Social Security Trust Fund is, and always has been, an accounting fiction. For almost all of Social Security's history, the amount of money the program received from payroll taxes has exceeded the amount of money it paid out in benefits. The excess revenues, by law, are "invested" in special-issue, nonmarketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are marked on the government's balance sheet as "assets" of the Social Security program, but they are also counted as debts owed by the U.S. government. In fact, $2.6 trillion of our $14.3 trillion debt consists of bonds owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.

I did not know that. Almost makes it sound like payroll taxes should be included in the "Federal taxes", since all that money we paid in, isn't really there? hmmm... I must be turning into a tea-partier. I do not understand that at all, but it makes me mad.

 

[WhoWee]

Interesting article.

I did not know that. Almost makes it sound like payroll taxes should be included in the "Federal taxes", since all that money we paid in, isn't really there? hmmm... I must be turning into a tea-partier. I do not understand that at all, but it makes me mad.

Cheer up - a meeting with the Presiden, Vice President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi just ended (saw a news report). I expect Harry Reid will now get something done with the Republican leadership in Congress.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think most people here see it, Ivan. There's an obvious symmetry here that you're simply unwilling to accept and as a result, you need to paint the right as being ideologically driven while the left is driven by pragmatism. It just plain isn't true and it is very easy to see. Both sides are clearly adhering to their fallback ideology: the left wants to tax the rich and the right wants to cut spending, each based on an opposite premise for how government should work and if either side gives in, the "crisis" ends. Claiming that your ideology isn't an ideology is just laughable. And it's not like you can't find this issue framed properly in the mainstream media: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/23/zickar.silent.majority/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion debt reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot if we are to achieve a balanced budget, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class? Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. It was crazy to refuse it! But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

What you said has nothing to do with the facts.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama offered something like a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, with a spending cut-to-revenue increase ratio of 3:1. It was reported that he even agreed to go 4:1, which is one reason the left is so angry with him. But the House Republicans refused it. They even refused the bipartisan plan from the gang of 6 in the Senate.

This is not about the obvious need for draconian cuts in entitlements and spending. Your suggestion as such is completely media driven. This is about the right refusing to put one dime of this on the back of billionaires. These are extraordinarily bad times where the rich are richer than they've ever been, they profited the most over the last fifteen years, they enjoy the lowest tax rates in since Truman, and they are unwilling to contribute a dime to their country. No matter how much Obama offered to cut, the right refused to take one more dime from the rich, and purely out of princple. This cannot be justified in any moral or rational sense. We are faced with a fundamental choice and one worth fighting for. Knowing that the poor and middle class will be asked to sacrifice a lot, are the rich going to contribute to the solution, or do they get a completely free ride on the backs of the working class. Obama is right to draw the line. In the words of even many conservative pundits, he made an extraodinarily generous offer. But the right would drive us over a cliff based on the delusions of people like Bachmann who thinks thinks we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills, and the demand that the rich shall contribute nothing to the solution.

What you said has nothing to do with the facts.

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

 

[SixNein]

Given the politicians raid the surplus funds and still need to borrow additional outside funds to meet their bloated spending requirements - about 42% of the cash flow is from debt - there is a problem that needs to be solved. Social Security is not secure.

The line of argumentation your using is the price reason why the United States is in a great deal of economical trouble. Problems cannot be discussed or solved because of rigid ideologies. There are a great many factors affecting the government's negative finances, and none of them stem from social security.

One thing I find interesting in American politics is the weight given to party. People will agree with a liberal if he's a republican but disagree if he's a democrat. And the same is true for conservatives. I came across an article today on Obama that was shockingly accurate:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/07/22/Barack-Obama-The-Democrats-Richard-Nixon.aspx

But one would never hear either a liberal or conservative admit it.

I think the United States is dangerously close to becoming completely ungovernable. The fact that we are so close to default deadline is proof. The fact that a deadline of this sort is needed to try to get something half assed done is proof.

 

[WhoWee]

The line of argumentation your using is the price reason why the United States is in a great deal of economical trouble. Problems cannot be discussed or solved because of rigid ideologies. There are a great many factors affecting the government's negative finances, and none of them stem from social security.

As OmCheeto pointed out - the problem with Social Security is mismanagement of the surplus funds. At a very near time in the future - there won't be a surplus and funds will need to be borrowed to pay benefits - while the number of beneficiaries increases.

 

[SixNein]

If the bottom 50% of earners had paid more than 20% of all federal income taxes last year and the top 10% of income earners didn't pay the bulk of federal income taxes - you might have a point.

I think the fact that GE had negative taxes proves the point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The entire debate is tainted with ideology.

Entitlements must be cut in the long term but that is not the issue today. The issue today goes back to Bachmann and her claim that we can simply stop paying 40% of our bills and not raise the debt ceiling.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling, a lot of people won't get money they are due. Geithner and Obama will have to pick and choose who that may be but there are no good choices. Shall it be the elderly and their SS checks, the military, medicare payments...? We know we can't afford to default on our debt payments.

Given that Bachmann is one of the leading candidates for the Republicans, this absurd notion of defaulting on payments due is now mainstream thinking on the right.

What do you call people who simply choose to not pay their bills?