patrick.net

MattBayArea says

This seems like a pretty real threat to me, and possibly a goal of the crazies who are responsible. Then again, maybe these republicans really think that democrats will concede to their demands?

have you ever considered that we can't just continue borrowing more and more just to get through the month?

Obama roles out a new medical system, then the government shuts down.

MershedPerturders says

as in, you can only spend what you take in revenues?

ex.

I made 2 dollars today.

this means I can spend 2 dollars.

The reason we have a DEBT LIMIT is so that we dont got into too much debt.
Believe it or not, good books is about spending only what you bring in and no
more. You cannot rely on borrowing to fund a country. FULL STOP

But YOU cannot create money like the federal government can. So yes, you are limited to the supposed money that you have(or can even borrow, but that amount is based upon your income and ability to pay it back).

You do realize that money is borrowed into existence in our economy, whether public or private, right?

upisdown says

You do realize that money is borrowed into existence in our economy, whether public or private, right?

you do realize that this money is only valuable because other parties(china mainly) purchase these assets, effectively making a gesture that they are valuable?

if we continue to rely on this inflation, then they will discontinue this practice, and if we cannot be solvent, then our currency will implode. At that point who even knows what will happen. For starters we won't be able to fund the military, and that could cause major disasters.

China only values this form of wealth because we purchase things from them. If we cease to be able to afford their imports, or impose tariffs, then they will pull the plug.

This makes the entire economy broken by design.

"people like you are the ROT OF AMERICA."

Keep my Redneck family & friends out of this. lmao

HEY YOU says

"people like you are the ROT OF AMERICA."

Keep my Redneck family & friends out of this. lmao

while rednecks certainly suck, this class of craven lawyers, bureaucrats and accountants are far more vile. Im almost tempted to link Mein Kampf here.

MershedPerturders says

you do realize that this money is only valuable because other parties(china
mainly) purchase these assets, effectively making a gesture that they are
valuable?

Not because money is a means of transaction, and a temporary store of value?

MershedPerturders says

if we continue to rely on this inflation, then they will discontinue this
practice, and if we cannot be solvent, then our currency will implode.

You will always have inflation with the way our currency works, just how much flucuates.

We have to have inflation because of an ever-increasing population, and standard of living, if not everybody is competing for a diminshing amount of money, more so than normal.

Please, let's refrain from tossing insults around. If you really want to discuss politics, reasoned arguments are the way, not insulting entire regions. This is not directed at any single person, or only the people who have posted in this thread so far (I know there are lots of trolls lurking!).

On a separate note:

MershedPerturders says

have you ever considered that we can't just continue borrowing more and more just to get through the month?

Yes, we can. We're not talking about gold - we're talking about a printed currency. We can add new debt, we could even print (inflate) new dollars. I'm not saying that we should do the latter, but raising the debt limit is something that has been done time and time again ... and NOW it's a problem?

MershedPerturders says

as in, you can only spend what you take in revenues?

ex.

I made 2 dollars today.

this means I can spend 2 dollars.

The reason we have a DEBT LIMIT

I don't mean to sound rude but I think you are contradicting yourself here.
1) We CAN spend more than we take in, in revenue. This spending creates debt.
2) This debt is the reason we have a debt limit - let me restate this ...

The reason we have a DEBT LIMIT

is so that we

can only spend [more than] you take in revenues

Do you know what the current debt limit is? Do you know what we would be raising it to, if congress raised it? Do you have an argument - a reasonable, logical argument - for why changing the debt limit from A to B is so terrible that it's worth what we're doing now? Tens of thousdands of people are going to lose their jobs and go on unemployement. More people will turn to crime as unemployment rises, causing increased policing and wellfare costs - not saving money. Tax revenue drops when employment drops. All because our congress, or some subset of it, is unwilling or unable to pass reasonable legislation.

You say the problem is that we do not take enough in revenue in. The solutions that jump out in my mind (please add to this list!):
1) Less spending - if we do this, we should probably think about what we want to spend less on. Congress controls the funding spigot and sets funds aside for projects - they need to set less aside for projects that we do not need. Congress passed a bill ('obamacare') and may decide to not fund this by passing a new bill.
2) More revenue - I'm all for higher taxes on people making a decent salary (myself included). I would be unhappy if taxes went up without cuts to spending because I do not trust our politicians to refrain from simply spending more, when they get more money, rather than borrowing less.
3) Shut down the whole government. I don't view this as a good solution - it's kind of like cutting off an arm because a fingernail is infected.

What are your thoughts on these solutions, MershedPerturders?

MershedPerturders says

China only values this form of wealth because we purchase things from them.
If we cease to be able to afford their imports, or impose tariffs, then they
will pull the plug.

This makes the entire economy broken by design.

China has almost 2 billion people, and they do whatever it takes to keep them occupied and relatively passive, instead of revolting.

We purchase things from them that are really cheap, and as those things get pricier, we buy less of them.

But, they use the income from us buying their junk to purchase commodities, and food. That purchasing is 10% of our total exports and in the $140 billion range.

MattBayArea says

Do you have an argument - a reasonable, logical argument - for why changing the debt limit from A to B is so terrible that it's worth what we're doing now?

what the next fight over the debt limit is really all about that the tax level has to be doubled eventually, moving us from a low-tax libertarian paradise to a high-tax social democracy like the nordic states.

the 1%, and the 0.1% naturally don't want this -- "got mine fuck you", and have bamboozled social conservatives to go along with their program by linking socialism with satanism.

Which, actually, is kinda true I guess, since the more socialist a place is or was, the less religious it is now.

PPACA hits the 1% with a 3.8% medicare tax starting this tax year. That's why they want to "repeal and replace" it. They all have their own doctors on staff, so this isn't about "socialized medicine" or the odious Heritage Foundation insurance mandate to them.

To put this in perspective, PPACA will jack up Romney's taxes 25% or more (14% to 17.8%). Ouch!

almost everyone who responded to me presented an ERRONEOUS, BIASED, and imho DESPERATE attempt to justify Californianomics.

in this fantasy world, profit is not a necessary ingredient for success. Only the ABILITY TO BORROW. This appears to be a constant because basically, it has been for the bulk of their clueless lives.

and then try to patronize on top of it. It's just hilarious. time to retire assholes!

MershedPerturders says

in this fantasy world, profit is not a necessary ingredient for success. Only
the ABILITY TO BORROW. This appears to be a constant because basically, it has
been for the bulk of their clueless lives

So money is NOT borrowed into existence?

and lets not forget people, in america the scam is FOR ALL TO ENJOY.

this scam is made for you and me.

this scam is your scam
this scam is my scam
from california
to the miami surburbs
from the bankrupt stockton
to the detroit wasteland
this scam
was made for you and me!

when i was shooting
an iraqi muslim
I saw above me
a goldman employee
he was chanting
some shit about jesus
this scam was made for you and me!

I flipped and frauded
a thousand shitbox
in a far off suburb
dotted with starbucks
Worked on my golf game
while we leveled bagdad
this scam was made for you and me!

I got my eye lift
i got my psych meds
i got my bunker
when it all comes crashing
cus jesus loves me
and bush protects me
this scam was made for you and me!

I saved on geico
I bought at walmart
I prayed to jesus
for a brand new hummer
merica is awesome
better than your country
this land was made for you and me!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XaI5IRuS2aE

upisdown says

MershedPerturders says

in this fantasy world, profit is not a necessary ingredient for success. Only

the ABILITY TO BORROW. This appears to be a constant because basically, it has

been for the bulk of their clueless lives

So money is NOT borrowed into existence?

dude I ALREADY FOOLED YOU INTO CONTRADICTING YOURSELF so please shut up and pay attention. Youve got a lot learn and I know that's hard for seniors. Give it an extra special try. Maybe if you get your blood pumping you'll be able to get a boner tonight.

Oh no The American Taliban is back!

MershedPerturders says

dude I ALREADY FOOLED YOU INTO CONTRADICTING YOURSELF so please shut up and
pay attention. Youve got a lot learn and I know that's hard for seniors. Give it
an extra special try. Maybe if you get your blood pumping you'll be able to get
a boner tonight.

LOL, You are so narrow minded that if things or people don't conform to your way of thinking, they are ?????

Retired? Not hardly, but we are very secure financially to where I only have to work when problems arise.

And I don't need or take boner pills. Maybe someday though.

You didn't answer my Q's, MershedPerturders! Instead, you're continuing this line of insults toward us Californians. If you'd rather have a discussion about what state is better, California or your favorite state, start another thread.MershedPerturders says

almost everyone who responded to me presented an ERRONEOUS, BIASED, and imho DESPERATE attempt to justify Californianomics.

Please quote someone, then post an argument or link that explains why that person is wrong.

MershedPerturders says

in this fantasy world, profit is not a necessary ingredient for success. Only the ABILITY TO BORROW. This appears to be a constant because basically, it has been for the bulk of their clueless lives.

Please quote someone who is saying that profit is not important. State your argument or position - if you have one. Are you saying that we should not borrow at all? If so, are you saying that the best way to remedy the current spending problem is to shut the government down completely until expenditures for the year have dropped down to the levels of our revenue? That's at least something we could have a reasoned debate about.

MershedPerturders says

Maybe if you get your blood pumping ...

I used to hate the delete feature on patnet - it just seems wrong. You're dragging this thread down so fast and so far that I'm reconsidering.

New Renter says

How much of that reduction is "doing nothing" vs lowering the interest rate of that debt?

The graph is deficit, not debt.

i has a chart!

Bellingham Bill says

what the next fight over the debt limit is really all about that the tax level has to be doubled eventually, moving us from a low-tax libertarian paradise to a high-tax social democracy like the nordic states.

It's not quite the low tax libertarian paradise you make out. Why 2009? The 2012 number from the Heritage Foundation is 29.6%. BUT that does not include state and local taxes. SInce the US is pretty much the only country on the list that has local funding of schools, police, fire, roads, etc.,etc. It's a pretty big omission. LIes, damn lies, and statistics.

Almost all of the other countries on the list have health care included in the taxes instead of a huge defense budget. I'm not so sure it's a great trade off.

MattBayArea says

MershedPerturders says

have you ever considered that we can't just continue borrowing more and more just to get through the month?

Yes, we can. We're not talking about gold - we're talking about a printed currency. We can add new debt, we could even print (inflate) new dollars. I'm not saying that we should do the latter, but raising the debt limit is something that has been done time and time again ... and NOW it's a problem?

Yes you can ask for more debt to borrow, but the lending community will ask for higher borrowing rates and may well demand austerity as was the case with Greece recently and So American in the 80s. Now your back to square one. You achieved nothing.

dodgerfanjohn says

Whats even more curious is I believe every last one of the posters advocating a higher income tax absolutely despises Mitt Romney, who ironically, advocated eliminating most of the deductions for high income people. A position that if implemented as law actually would have cost Mitt quite a bit of money

Irony...like most Liberals they will simple stick there heads into the ground and ignore it...

Bellingham Bill says

what the next fight over the debt limit is really all about that the tax level has to be doubled eventually, moving us from a low-tax libertarian paradise to a high-tax social democracy like the nordic states.

the Nordic states with high tax didnt do so well compared to their european counter parts.

Look To Sweden! Obama's High-Tax Gurus

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/05/13/look-to-sweden-obamas-high-tax-gurus/.

Note that tax guru, Saez, sings a less confident tune when he writes for fellow economists that: “There are no convincing estimates of long-run elasticities of taxable income and marginal tax rates.” My translation: “We really do not know how taxable income responds to high marginal rates, but we are guessing we can go up to 70 percent.” It pays to read the fine print before making the purchase.

In 1970, Swedish high earners paid marginal tax rates of 70 percent, rising to 85 percent by 1980. Marginal tax rates on dividends and capital gains were only slightly lower, if at all. Sweden’s entitlement state featured universal benefits replacing 90 percent or more of lost income, a state monopoly of social services, and a union-inspired ‘solidarity wage” that featured (as the Swede’s scornfully put it) “equal pay for all work.” Sweden’s distribution of income was as equal as the communist countries of Eastern Europe. Government spending rose to 60-70 percent of GDP versus the 45 to 50 percent in the rest of Europe at the time. Fifty percent more Swedes were “tax financed” than worked in the private sector.

Diamond and Saez should note that Sweden’s high marginal tax rates (and the associated Swedish welfare system) had a disastrous effect on economic growth. From 1850 to 1950, Swedish productivity growth was the fastest in the world. Sweden’s stellar economic performance made it the fourth richest OECD economy in 1970. By 1995, Sweden had fallen to sixteenth place – the most dramatic relative decline of any affluent country in history. Notably, Swedish firms operating outside of Sweden remained competitive. They were not the problem. The Swedish model was.

The Swedish experiment also shows the importance of what the government does with its money. Universal benefits destroyed the work ethic. Instead of “high return public investments,” Sweden raised public employment and expanded cradle-to-grave entitlements. The solidarity wage destroyed incentives to acquire skills or enroll in higher education. Regional subsidies slowed the movement of people from stagnating to growing regions.

dodgerfanjohn says

Whats even more curious is I believe every last one of the posters advocating a higher income tax absolutely despises Mitt Romney, who ironically, advocated eliminating most of the deductions for high income people. A position that if implemented as law actually would have cost Mitt quite a bit of money.

Word. As much as one can loathe or love Mittens, his tax proposals were favorable, eliminating loopholes mostly used and suitable for high rollers while keeping the tax burden in the middle class low.

MershedPerturders says

do you californian nitwits understand the notion of SOLVENCY?

as in, you can only spend what you take in revenues?

only 1 out 3 today are Native californians.. the rest are from "god knows where"... LOL

they have no idea about financial matters.. just give me give me...

Public employees's wages and benefits are bankrupting USA.
Their productivity is extremely low so now they will be paid for doing nothing and having a few days off with pay and benefits!
F