Debt Ceiling issue

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
#21
Published on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by TruthDig.com

Debt Madness Was Always About Killing Social Security
by Robert Scheer

This phony debt crisis has now passed through the looking glass into the realm where madness reigns. What should have been an uneventful moment in which lawmakers make good on the nation’s contractual obligations has instead been seized upon by Republican hypocrites as a moment to settle ideological scores that have nothing to do with the debt.

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio looks on during a news conference at The Republican National Committee. (AP / Carolyn Kaster)
Hypocrites, because their radical free market ideology, and the resulting total deregulation of the financial markets, is what caused the debt to spiral out of control this last decade. That and the wars George W. Bush launched but didn’t have the integrity to responsibly finance. The consequence was a banking bubble and crash leading to a 50 percent run-up of the debt that has nothing to do with the “entitlements” that those same Republicans have always wanted to destroy.

Even Barack Obama has put cuts in those programs into play, warning ominously that a failure to lift the debt ceiling could cause the government to stop sending out Social Security checks. Why, when the Social Security trust fund is fully funded for the next quarter-century and is owed money by the U.S. Treasury rather than the other way around? Why would we pay foreign creditors before American seniors? The answer, offered as conventional wisdom by leaders of both parties, is that we cannot endanger our credit by failing to back our bonds, even though the Republicans have aroused the alarm of the main U.S. credit rating agencies by their brinkmanship on the debt.

What a topsy-turvy world when the same credit rating agencies that gave the thumbs up to the bankers’ toxic mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps now threaten the AAA rating of U.S. Treasury bonds. According to them, it will not be enough to merely lift the debt ceiling—what had been assumed by both Republican and Democratic presidents to be a routine act. In addition to that, as the credit agency Standard & Poor’s has insisted, more than $4 trillion has to be cut from programs that mostly benefit the victims of the banking meltdown. Otherwise the agencies will downgrade the U.S. credit rating, leading to higher interest rates that will destroy what remains of the U.S. housing market, dim the prospect for any improvement in employment and further enrich the Chinese government and other holders of U.S. debt.

President Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership are clearly poised to cave in to those demands in the spirit of “compromise,” Obama’s favorite word, but the Republicans keep upping the ante. The GOP is shameless: Speaker John Boehner has sanctimoniously responded to Obama’s plea for a bargain that gives up almost everything to the right wing by rebuffing the president on the grounds that the Republican Party is the last line of defense against big government.

Boehner dared blame Obama for “the largest spending binge in American history,” which he attributed to the health care reform, most of which has yet to be enacted, and a stimulus program that was an underfunded effort to save American jobs. Not a word from Boehner or the other Republicans about the banking collapse that resulted from their deregulatory policies, the real cause of the inflated debt.

Boehner’s slogan, “I’ve always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people,” is downright bizarre coming from someone who supported the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the banking bailout and the highest war spending since World War II, all of which is what caused government to get this big. Was it job stimulus spending that kept GM jobs in this country that made people smaller, or the loss of their homes and jobs as a result of the policies that are at the core of the Republican program?

What is at stake is a radical Republican agenda to totally reverse the progress in economic justice that began with the great reforms of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. Consider the direct consequence of the economic crisis that unfettered Wall Street greed has wrought, particularly in reversing the gains made by the most underprivileged sectors of the population. As The Wall Street Journal reported, based on a Pew Research Center study from 2005 to 2009, “The wealth gap between whites and each of the nation’s two largest minorities—Hispanics and blacks—has widened to unprecedented levels amid the housing crisis and the recession. … The disparities are the greatest since the government began tracking such data a quarter-century ago. …”

But there is plenty of suffering to go around as a result of the deep recession. The wealth of whites in that period declined by 16 percent, not to mention the ever-greater chasm between the top 2 percent and everyone else. That’s the same 2 percent whose tax cuts the Republicans are determined to preserve.

© 2011 TruthDig.com
 

Mehran(ISP)

<b>Administrator</b>
Oct 16, 2002
3,404
0
MD, USA
#22
No.
What I wrote is quite the opposite of your statement below that you happen to think that is in agreement to mine. The price of not cutting the budget deficit is far greater than any short-term gain from funding additional government activity at this point. As I noted yesterday, and investors are finding out today and will become even more convinced soon, this is a serious issue with serious consequences. Bond rates will rise and this will hurt the US much, much more than any good that government stimulus will provide.
I agree. People don't understand the seriousness of the higher interst that U.S will have to pay on any future bond sales. It can seriously jeopardize a government's ability to pay its obligation and debt for years if not decades to come. Although it takes a second to downgrade a credit rating it takes years if not decades to upgrade it after the "fear" of the market is gone. That being said, since all three of the credit ratings are located in the U.S, the U.S government might put pressure on them. I do forcast these credit agencies relocating to neutral grounds in the upcoming years. Specially after the buzz of EU criticizing them for being in U.S soil. This is how future financial wars start.

Since Boehner's plan came back as a scam with not saving as much as advertised today the Democrats might have the upper hand to push their plans ahead now.
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#24
I agree. People don't understand the seriousness of the higher interst that U.S will have to pay on any future bond sales. It can seriously jeopardize a government's ability to pay its obligation and debt for years if not decades to come. Although it takes a second to downgrade a credit rating it takes years if not decades to upgrade it after the "fear" of the market is gone. That being said, since all three of the credit ratings are located in the U.S, the U.S government might put pressure on them. I do forcast these credit agencies relocating to neutral grounds in the upcoming years. Specially after the buzz of EU criticizing them for being in U.S soil. This is how future financial wars start.

Since Boehner's plan came back as a scam with not saving as much as advertised today the Democrats might have the upper hand to push their plans ahead now.
maybe..but the markets didn't care that much about Japan's debt either and Japan gets money for the same prize as when they had AAA or whatever else. US defaulting would be a serious issue but from what I got the debt ceiling is by law unconstitutional and push comes to shovel, Obama, if he has the balls, has the authority to say fuck you and raise the roof. So while VIX is rising and there might be fear on the stock market, the bond market so far doesn't seem to care much(see chart above) and it shouldn't come to US defaulting.
IF US defaults however, then we would have an interesting case study.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,196
0
#25
I agree. People don't understand the seriousness of the higher interst that U.S will have to pay on any future bond sales. It can seriously jeopardize a government's ability to pay its obligation and debt for years if not decades to come. Although it takes a second to downgrade a credit rating it takes years if not decades to upgrade it after the "fear" of the market is gone. That being said, since all three of the credit ratings are located in the U.S, the U.S government might put pressure on them. I do forcast these credit agencies relocating to neutral grounds in the upcoming years. Specially after the buzz of EU criticizing them for being in U.S soil. This is how future financial wars start.

Since Boehner's plan came back as a scam with not saving as much as advertised today the Democrats might have the upper hand to push their plans ahead now.
Yes. Credit rating agencies are in the US, you are right. And just like any other regulating and rating agency they are for sure not independent. This is not just about credit rating however. The latest episode is about damaging the perception of US paying back its debt, credit downgrade or not.

Boehner is truly a lying inept person. But if you think the Democrats have much ability do not hold your breath. They have proven to be pathetic, from Obama to Pelosi to Reid. Democrats have two stars, Clinton and Clinton. They sure have not appreciated them.
 

Mehran(ISP)

<b>Administrator</b>
Oct 16, 2002
3,404
0
MD, USA
#26
maybe..but the markets didn't care that much about Japan's debt either and Japan gets money for the same prize as when they had AAA or whatever else. US defaulting would be a serious issue but from what I got the debt ceiling is by law unconstitutional and push comes to shovel, Obama, if he has the balls, has the authority to say fuck you and raise the roof. So while VIX is rising and there might be fear on the stock market, the bond market so far doesn't seem to care much(see chart above) and it shouldn't come to US defaulting.
IF US defaults however, then we would have an interesting case study.
Here's what I'm predicting if they default. Forget about the credit ratings because that's the last worry at that point since it affects U.S long term. We will have short term problems to deal with. Dollar will drop significantly, world markets will do the same seeing that the world's largest economy is no more. Dollar decrease will have OPEC trading in other currency(ies), samething for gold and the day of the dollar being the world's currency will be over. You can also forget about Portugal, Ireland, and maybe even Italy as they're operating at a income to debt ration of 130% of GDP. This is all at a international level. Domestically it's another issue and much simpler with social programs running out of money; and that just one issue. All of this because the two parties are here to prove a point.
 

ardy

Legionnaire
Nov 25, 2004
6,575
0
San Diego Armando Maradona, CA
#27
Anti-regulation is a republican theme. A lot of the needed institutions were in place during the Clinton era (look up what Brooskley Born was doing at the CFTC) but nothing too preventative could be done because of the influence of republicans like Alan Greenspan.
Again, you are looking at things in black and white only: Dems good, Republicans bad. But the truth is that deregulation has been very much a democratic theme too- it's certainly not exclusive to republicans to say the least. Robert Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, was a major force behind Greenspan's deregulation agenda.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?pagewanted=print
Mr. Greenberger asserts that the political climate would have been different had Mr. Rubin called for regulation.

In early 1998, Mr. Rubin’s deputy, Lawrence H. Summers, called Ms. Born and chastised her for taking steps he said would lead to a financial crisis, according to Mr. Greenberger. Mr. Summers said he could not recall the conversation but agreed with Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin that Ms. Born’s proposal was “highly problematic.”

On April 21, 1998, senior federal financial regulators convened in a wood-paneled conference room at the Treasury to discuss Ms. Born’s proposal. Mr. Rubin and Mr. Greenspan implored her to reconsider, according to both Mr. Greenberger and Mr. Levitt.

Ms. Born pushed ahead. On June 5, 1998, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Levitt called on Congress to prevent Ms. Born from acting until more senior regulators developed their own recommendations. Mr. Levitt says he now regrets that decision. Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin were “joined at the hip on this,” he said. “They were certainly very fiercely opposed to this and persuaded me that this would cause chaos.”
Btw, guess who did Obama appoint as his chief economic adviser right when he became president?! Larry Summers. LOL!
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#28
Here's what I'm predicting if they default. Forget about the credit ratings because that's the last worry at that point since it affects U.S long term. We will have short term problems to deal with. Dollar will drop significantly, world markets will do the same seeing that the world's largest economy is no more. Dollar decrease will have OPEC trading in other currency(ies), samething for gold and the day of the dollar being the world's currency will be over. You can also forget about Portugal, Ireland, and maybe even Italy as they're operating at a income to debt ration of 130% of GDP. This is all at a international level. Domestically it's another issue and much simpler with social programs running out of money; and that just one issue. All of this because the two parties are here to prove a point.
It might come down to this....but I guess we can"t even predict what will happen. Remember we're in a recession, we will have a huge shortage of liquidity...I mean, we could finally get the 1930ies recession we didn't quiet have this time...or nothing happens...I really don't know..though second option is unlikely
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#29

ardy

Legionnaire
Nov 25, 2004
6,575
0
San Diego Armando Maradona, CA
#30
The Bloomberg party that establishes him as the dictator of the US? Which Third Party? It comes down to the lesser of two evils and since there's no one on the Republican side you can take halfway serious and the Democratic part isn't the smartest either, it comes down to what it is.

Besides, here's an account on Harry Reid and Democrats in Senate and how they got the US in the mess it is now..
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/26/how-harry-reid-caused-the-debt-ceiling-debacle/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...iling-in-2010/2011/07/11/gIQA3uWFbI_blog.html
As a democrat, I'm absolutely disgusted by those who are running the Democratic party. You have given a good example right there in Harry Reid who happens to be confirmed thief in the state of Nevada but still gets re-elected because of major endorsements and also the fact that his opponent was a moron.
I don't know who I'll be voting for as it's still too early but I'm not picking the lesser evil in Obama this time around. I'd probably vote for somebody like Nader or even Ron Paul-despite my disagreements with some of his ideas.

[video=youtube;kF67r8HXE2I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF67r8HXE2I&feature=related[/video]

This is what it comes down to. Yes, Obama lacks balls, he could have handled it better, his centrism bullshit is rubbish...it's not however that anyone else is doing a better job and whenever a grown up has to deal with kids and takes them serious, you get the mess we got now.

Hillary Clinton would have picked the same staff Obama picked. How on earth would she have done a better job and on what basis? Maybe she wouldn't have allowed Republicans to blackmail her but then again, her policies would have been at best a larger stimulus and a more European based medicaid program...programs for which people here criticzed Obama for for doing it at all.
I don't disagree with you there; Hillary would have been the same. But yet in the primaries, Obama claimed that he's different than the Clintons and yet 3 years gone and he's been trying to act like Clinton as far as getting things done: hence my point that Obama has been a total scam.
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#31
As a democrat, I'm absolutely disgusted by those who are running the Democratic party. You have given a good example right there in Harry Reid who happens to be confirmed thief in the state of Nevada but still gets re-elected because of major endorsements and also the fact that his opponent was a moron.
I don't know who I'll be voting for as it's still too early but I'm not picking the lesser evil in Obama this time around. I'd probably vote for somebody like Nader or even Ron Paul-despite my disagreements with some of his ideas.
Ok, fair point, but I'm just saying, the political environment is not of grown up people but children.




I don't disagree with you there; Hillary would have been the same. But yet in the primaries, Obama claimed that he's different than the Clintons and yet 3 years gone and he's been trying to act like Clinton as far as getting things done: hence my point that Obama has been a total scam.
Well, HE is different than Hillary. For one, he is much more to the center. For the second, while it seems to hurt him in office, he is a class apart from all other politicians in the US or maybe even worldwide. His approach is that of mutual respect, talking issues out, thoughtful, bipartisan etc.. Personality wise, he is still the same he was during the campaign and hasn't changed and as a character, the US got the president who campaigned. Overall, compared to what the US had under Bush, it's a whole different approach to presidency, something not even Clinton would have offered. But since he's dealing with children, that's maybe the problem.
 
Feb 7, 2004
13,568
0
#32
What we see is way beyond debt ceiling issue. It is about a system that has lost its flexibility to deal with pivotal issues. It is about lack of ideological balance in the society.
It is about a society that is confused between self-interests & ideological entrenchment.
A glimpse through the history of this nation provides ample proofs how greatest achievements came about whenever greater interests of society were put before ideologies. Look how this nation overcame biggest depression the modern history has seen. Look how one peace of progressive legislation (GI bill) after WW-II created the biggest & most prosperous middle class in this country.
For 40 years we were told corporate tax cut, tax break for richest on the top and deregulation is name of the game and it would bring more employment and general prosperity. Results are right in front us. Greater disparities, ever widening gap between rich & poor. Crumbling infrastructures, an outdated educational system an elitist health care system. That philosophy in the process also created one of the biggest corporate welfare system in the world. Tragically, one of the biggest corporate welfare system in a country that always adamantly preached self-reliance and hated government “hand-outs” and welfare measures.
Most probably there will be last minute deal on debt ceiling issue but that won’t be the end of this sad saga.
 

ChaharMahal

Elite Member
Oct 18, 2002
16,563
261
#33
well i have to hand it to republicans (and conservative democrats).

31 years of starve the beast has finally done it.

31 year of low taxes for the rich. and they are like well entitlement programs are gone drive the country out of business.

the whole issue of debt ceiling is idiotic. congress passes the budget then they have to pass another bill that lets treasury borrow the shortfall.

the u.s economic system could have been easily solved ten years ago.

legalize illegal immigrants have them pay a bit more into the system. stop this nonsense of sending people educated in the U.s back to their home country.

limit how much money doctors can make. (subsidize becoming a general practitioner)

change this medicare and medicaid fee for service model.

tax the rich and the self employed (half of self employed do not pay shit) a bit more. capital f**kig gains for anybody with wealth above a million should be taxed at

25%.

stop this huge tax expenditure game.

stop jailing people for easy drug consumption offenses.

stop jailing Mexicans left and right.

stop making wars left and right.

stop making any more Nimitz class air craft careers.

to me any economy is in big trouble when banks and insurance companies are making about 30% of corporate profits.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#35
I don't think there's anyone that can disagree with the fact that borrowing to pay your bills and living of credit is un-healthy. But I have to disagree with the fact that it hasn't done anything. Noone knows what would of happened if the government didn't pump this cash into the economy. Would the unemployment rate be 20% instead of 10%? Maybe, with the likes of Citi, BOA, and auto industry going down sounds more probable, where will these people that were going to get laid off be hired? I do have a problem of this being a political game. I don't understand why the republicans don't want a tax increase for people that make a very healthy living; it's simple math that you have to bring in more and cut programs. All they want to do is cut programs without the increase in revenue and raise it for another 6 months so the same thing can go on then and it's much closer to the re-election to play politics.
It depends on your economic philosophy. I lean more towards an Austrian economic philosophy and think it'd have been better to simply liquidate the debt than to have printed all this money and effectively shat on the currency while the bankers take their huge bonuses/corps - an ironic reward considering they played such a huge hand in all this.

But this is what happens when you let the Fed just print money. If I were American I would be voting in Ron Paul. Heck, even if i I were a democrat, I'd register Republican if I had to simply so that he may actually get the nomination because the rest of the Republicans are lunatics. Not to say the Democrats are a whole lot better. The two parties are effectively one. A lot of people called it before the election but Obama was not going to bring about real change and he hasn't.

------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html - Koerner urging Democrats to become 'Blue Republicans' to vote Paul.
 
Last edited:

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#36
It depends on your economic philosophy. I lean more towards an Austrian economic philosophy and think it'd have been better to simply liquidate the debt than to have printed all this money and effectively shat on the currency while the bankers take their huge bonuses/corps - an ironic reward considering they played such a huge hand in all this.

But this is what happens when you let the Fed just print money. If I were American I would be voting in Ron Paul. Heck, even if i I were a democrat, I'd register Republican if I had to simply so that he may actually get the nomination because the rest of the Republicans are lunatics. Not to say the Democrats are a whole lot better. The two parties are effectively one. A lot of people called it before the election but Obama was not going to bring about real change and he hasn't.

------

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html - Koerner urging Democrats to become 'Blue Republicans' to vote Paul.
The last time people followed Austrian economists during a financial crisis was in 1930s. Just saying...
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#37
The last time people followed Austrian economists during a financial crisis was in 1930s. Just saying...
Sophistry at its finest. Correlation =/= Causation.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Great Depression was created by the Federal Bank. Just to show, there are many more thoughts on the matter than what you'd like to appreciate.

The current oncoming disaster is also much to do with the Fed and the ideology behind Keynesian economics.

Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble a long time ago (so did many Austrian economists). In fact, he didn't just predict it, he explained how it would happen.

[video=youtube;826q7RqTEk8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826q7RqTEk8&feature=related[/video]
 

Mahdi

Elite Member
Jan 1, 1970
6,999
497
Mjunik
#38
Sophistry at its finest. Correlation =/= Causation.

Friedman won the Nobel Prize for showing that the Great Depression was created by the Federal Bank. Just to show, there are many more thoughts on the matter than what you'd like to appreciate.
Yes, criticizing the Austrian school and Hayek-Mises business cycle theory. In case you do or do not know, before 1935 the Austrian school was quite popular and the policies you suggested were applied by the Fed, which led to a liquidity trap. What Friedman suggested was what Bernanke did, keep the money flowing. Friedman himself was a monetarist and had little to do with the Austrian school.

Anyway, you should read Friedman.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#39
I know about Friedman, I am talking about the influences of the Fed. Where I disagree with Friedman, and I suppose so do Austrian economists, is that the market knows better to regulate than a private entity - i.e. the Fed. This is quite ironic, since Friedman himself is a huge supporter of free markets in pretty much every other facet of life.

And no, the business cycle theory has been used post-Depression to show why the Depression occurred. For the record, I am not interested in wasting both our time arguing why/how it started as I am sure we'll disagree anyway. I am saying don't generalise when there are multiple reasons and theories as to what happened. Trying to say: Austrian economics became less popular after 1930 (which happened to be when the Great Depression occurred) as some sort of proof of its utility is disingenuous.