« previous   politics   next »

Republicans Prepare to Wave White Flag Again, This Time On Debt Ceiling


By Mish   Follow   Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 1:58am PST   1,347 views   24 comments   Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

Republicans Prepare to Wave White Flag Again, This Time On Debt Ceiling; "Temporary, Partial, Non-Threats"
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/republicans-prepare-to-wave-white-flag.html
Mish

Comments 1-24 of 24     Last »

marcus   befriend   ignore   Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 1:37pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 1

I guess Mish is one of the many right wingers who don't even comprehend what the debt ceiling is.

Or maybe the issue is that he like so many others believes the fantasy that cutting spending is something that republicans can easily do, if only they could get the democrats to go along with some sensible restraint.

The truth is everyone in congress wants to cut spending, and hopefully they will still find some significant cuts to avoid the so called sequester.
Who knows, maybe they will even find away to act in good faith in all of our interests, you know, like grown ups.

But the idea that the debt ceiling increase (ie threatening to default on debt we have already accrued) should be used as leverage, not to get spending cuts, but to get the spending cuts that the right wants, is insane.

Obama is right to say that he will not engage in that discussion at all, and that if the right wing lunatics wish to move to bankrupt our country,
then go ahead, with knowledge that it is your doing and your doing alone.

It's embarrassing to have US congressman behaving like retarded children. That stunt was the reason our credit rating was lowered before, I can't believe that Mish seems to be implicitly backing similar behavior again.

The wimpy language bantered about by Republicans before debt ceiling debate even begins suggests the safe thing to do is prepare for more retreats and more white flags.

What, you want them to act like retarded children again ?

marcus   befriend   ignore   Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 1:53pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 2

COngress has no choice but to find huge spending cuts in the next couple months, as the sequester process has only been delayed.

They don't need debt ceiling games to make this necessary. That childish game is only about distracting the dim bulbs and acting like they have the high ground, while trying to get their way (on exactly what gets cut). That's not fair negotiation.

"waaaaa, waaaaaaa, we're hold our breath and then scream really loud, and then default the US government if we don't get our way !!"

Guess what ? THE SPENDING CUTS HAVE TO HAPPEN OR ELSE AUTOMATIC CUTS HAPPEN !!

I admit I don't fully understand the nuances of what's coming in the next days and weeks in congress.

But then I don't write an opinion blog implying that I do.

Kevin   befriend   ignore   Wed, 2 Jan 2013, 3:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 3

The debt ceiling is the most idiotic piece of economic stupidity the US government has ever created.

- Most people, including politicians, don't actually understand what it is.

- Because of the stupid politicians who don't actually understand what it is, there's a very real risk of triggering debt defaults, potentially destroying the entire economy overnight.

- It results in politicians wasting time on stupid bullshit instead of actually doing something about the deficit.

Yes, Republicans should raise the debt ceiling because it DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. They should just raise it to $999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 and never discuss it again.

Then they can have a real debate about the priorities of the United States.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 2:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 4

Kevin says

It results in politicians wasting time on stupid bullshit instead of actually doing something about the deficit.

Exactly.

Mish: THere are automatic spending cuts that kick in if congress can't figure out how to cut spending.

Seems like this should be motivation enough.

So why the need to threaten defaulting ?

Is it because it's part of the whole show that implies that it's the democrats lack of cooperation that keeps things from moving forward ?

Is it because you think republicans should get to say "zero cuts to defense" or "hell no! to means testing ?"

I think that's it. You think that republicans should get to default on the US debt if the cuts aren't exactly the cuts they want, and not any of the cuts they don't want (defense, corporate subsidies, etc).

Kevin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 3:10am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 5

If we don't cut defense, we'll never fix the deficit.

Republicans want means testing, marcus. Once you means test something, you can turn the well off against it. There is no faster way to kill medicare and social security entirely than to add means testing.

mell   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 3:12am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 6

Kevin says

If we don't cut defense, we'll never fix the deficit.

Republicans want means testing, marcus. Once you means test something, you can turn the well off against it. There is no faster way to kill medicare and social security entirely than to add means testing.

Agreed, defense cuts are absolutely necessary (which was also a big part in KDs open letter).

marcus   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 3:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 7

Kevin says

Republicans want means testing, marcus. Once you means test something, you can turn the well off against it. There is no faster way to kill medicare and social security entirely than to add means testing.

I recall Romney saying he was for means testing. Let's see whether they are.

It seems to me that means testing of some kind is essential. For example certain level of means might mean that you still pay in to medicare (but also still receive it) beyond 65.

I don't understand this "Once you means test something, you can turn the well off against it."

I'm guessing this means that those who have to pay more to get it, or don't get the same benefit, because of their means, would be pissed off and that this represents future political support against medicare all together, or for vouchers ?

Kevin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 7:23am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 8

marcus says

I'm guessing this means that those who have to pay more to get it, or don't get the same benefit, because of their means, would be pissed off and that this represents future political support against medicare all together, or for vouchers ?

Correct.

Lets look at the social programs that have the most support:

- Medicare
- Social Security

And those with the least:

- Food Stamps
- TANF
- Medicaid
- Section 8

The only difference between the former and the latter group is that the latter is means tested.

People are generally not happy with the idea that they have to pay for something that only benefits somebody else.

We don't need to means test social security. What I'd propose is this:

- Remove the tax cap
- Make retirement age a variable that increases along with life average life expectancy.

Medicare should just be turned into a nationalized health care program for everybody.

FortWayne   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 7:30am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 9

marcus says

Or maybe the issue is that he like so many others believes the fantasy that cutting spending is something that republicans can easily do, if only they could get the democrats to go along with some sensible restraint.

We as a nation need to cut spending, but neither side is willing to give up their tax preferences. Democrats got their unions and corporations, Republicans got their military and their corporations.

The rest of us working chums are paying for it all every day of our life. Obama is full of crap when he talks about fair share, just as much as Republicans.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 7:56am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 10

Kevin says

The only difference between the former and the latter group is that the latter is means tested.

If medicare was means tested it would be a small percentage that would not qualify for full benefits. What, maybe somewhere in the 5 - 15% range? Of course even full benefits require supplemental insurance.

Possibly means testing would just mean that people above certain income or net worth have to pay more supplemental premiums.

Kevin   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 8:49am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 11

marcus says

If medicare was means tested it would be a small percentage that would not qualify for full benefits. What, maybe somewhere in the 5 - 15% range? Of course even full benefits require supplemental insurance.

That depends entirely on the means testing formula.

marcus says

Possibly means testing would just mean that people above certain income or net worth have to pay more supplemental premiums.

Sure, maybe. Medicare isn't the real issue, though, since nobody can get private insurance at that age that's the only option they have.

marcus   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 10:12am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 12

Actually everyone buys supplemental insurance to medicare. The rich could just be forced to buy more if they are to have the same amount of coverage (thus shifting cost away from medicare)

Ironman   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 10:28am PST   Share   Quote   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 13

marcus says

Actually everyone buys supplemental insurance to medicare.

Not even close....

...."In 2006, 18% of Medicare beneficiaries were covered by a Medigap policy."

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

marcus   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 10:43am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 14

Call it Crazy says

"In 2006, 18% of Medicare beneficiaries were covered by a Medigap policy."

Okay, but then there's also Medicare Advantage.

Read a few sentences further on your link.

"Medigap insurance is not compatible with other forms of private Medicare coverage, such as a Medicare Advantage plan. [2]"

Ironman   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 11:02am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 15

marcus says

Okay, but then there's also Medicare Advantage.

Do you actually know what the Medicare Advantage plan is???

iwog   befriend   ignore   Thu, 3 Jan 2013, 11:26pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 16

marcus says

I guess Mish is one of the many right wingers who don't even comprehend what the debt ceiling is.

I agree. This is stunning ignorance from someone who pretends to know about the economy.

Many Republicans in congress are responsible for voting yes on spending programs that made increasing the debt ceiling necessary. Now after voting to spend the money, they want to vote against paying the bill.

Idiocracy.

Vicente   befriend   ignore   Fri, 4 Jan 2013, 8:14am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

iwog says

Many Republicans in congress are responsible for voting yes on spending programs that made increasing the debt ceiling necessary. Now after voting to spend the money, they want to vote against paying the bill.

This fits with their "starve the beast" idea. So while unethical and irresponsible, it's at least consistent with doctrine.

junglemutt   befriend   ignore   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:37am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

National debt currently at $16 trillion plus. At what point does it become a concern.....only when it's a crisis or shortly before then?

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 8:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 19

junglemutt says

At what point does it become a concern.....only when it's a crisis or shortly before then?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=epw

blue is total owed by everyone

red is how much .gov has borrowed

what worries me more than the $16T of national debt is our negative $4T NIIP.

and that's being driven by our trade deficit.

if you want to save this country you've got to work to close our trade deficit

junglemutt   befriend   ignore   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 9:45am PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 20

Hey Bill, I lived in Ferndale for a few years back in 2003 to 2006. My family very much enjoyed NW Washington despite the rain.

The trade deficit will be partially solved as the dollar continues to drop vs. most international currencies, as it has for the last several years. (ie. Canadian, Australian, Chilean, Peruvian, Swiss currencies, etc.) Problem is third world currencies tend to be priced cheap for a reason - irresponsible governments and lacking economies. We have both.

Most of us could do w/o a lot of the Chinese-made WalMart junk that we purchase. In other words, let's encourage more savings and less consumption, since we make very little in the US of what we consume.

As the thirld word middle class continues to grow combined w/ our depressed dollar, you would suspect our over-priced labor to become more competitive internationally.

A tax policy that encourages manufacturing companies to remain in the US or commence operations in the US could be helpful.

Limiting labor union power would also positively contribute to manufacturing and exports, but then the standard of living for our middle class suffers as well.

Fracking for more petroleum and natural gas would also help our negative NIIP. Less imported oil is a good thing as long as the US environment doesn't suffer for it.

All kinds of possibilities, the problem is we are reluctant to face reality as a nation, and we have few politicians that want to "lead" us through this dilemma. They'd much rather position themselves for the next election.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 11:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

junglemutt says

They'd much rather position themselves for the next election.

no surprise there. Voting yourself out of a cushy & prestigious job takes some pretty big huevos, or enough in the bank to not care any more

for the record, I've only been to Bellingham once, back in 1985, but it seemed a very nice place and since it has a Trader Joe's I could see myself relocating there sooner or later -- summering in WA and wintering in Santa Cruz would be great.

Then again I hear scary things about rural WA so who knows . . .

Vicente   befriend   ignore   Wed, 9 Jan 2013, 1:59pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 22

junglemutt says

National debt currently at $16 trillion plus. At what point does it become a concern.....only when it's a crisis or shortly before then?

It's a crisis when there's a Democrat in office.

When a Republican is in office, then "deficits don't matter".

Iceland had the right idea.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Sun, 13 Jan 2013, 8:53am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

The national debt is simply evidence of money that should have been taxed (or tariffed) and not borrowed.

Problem is our low taxes on the paycheck economy (Romney's 47%) is allowing home valuations and rents to remain high as they are.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

Double taxes burdens on the 99% and rents would crater, taking investment valuations with it, along with all the debt used to acquire these properties.

Our entire system is as rotten as something really rotten.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   befriend   ignore   Sun, 13 Jan 2013, 8:57am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 24

Bellingham Bill says

Our entire system is as rotten as something really rotten.

Nothing a little Cannibal Anarchy can't fix.

Email (Required, will not be visible)

Username (Just pick a name if you're new)

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about