Where were you when America defaulted on its debt.

[Tress]

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

That does not explicitly state whether or not the debt ceiling is valid. Any interpretation suggesting that the President would then be allowed to bypass Congress' responsibility and powers regarding the budget would set a very dangerous precedent.

 

[Krisken]

Perhaps, but it is his duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure our debts are paid (especially when Congress refuses to be grown ups and tries to ignore the Constitution). The difference between Bill Clinton and Obama appears to be a pair of testicles.

 

[SpecialKO]

Perhaps, but it is his duty to uphold the Constitution and ensure our debts are paid (especially when Congress refuses to be grown ups and tries to ignore the Constitution). The difference between Bill Clinton and Obama appears to be a pair of testicles.

Bill Clinton also had the benefit of surplus economy, no ongoing wars that he didn't start, no war-fatigue, and a right-wing base that, unlike the their fringe, thought that his tax dodging and an office blowjob were the worst they would have to put up with.

I liked Clinton too, but god only knows what Bill Clinton might have done.

 

[Krisken]

Bill Clinton also had the benefit of surplus economy, no ongoing wars that he didn't start, no war-fatigue, and a right-wing base that, unlike the their fringe, thought that his tax dodging and an office blowjob were the worst they would have to put up with.

I liked Clinton too, but god only knows what Bill Clinton might have done.

Funny you should say that.

Maybe I wouldn't be so hard on Obama if this wasn't the third time he's drawn a line in the sand and stepped over it. Every time he does it looks more and more like another 4 years of this will be more devastating than if someone else was in charge. I really don't know anymore.

 

[SpecialKO]

Funny you should say that.

I think you missed my point. Clinton is talking about what he would do, but he's not President now, and doesn't have to deal with the consequences of what his words and actions might mean. Talk's cheap, in other words.

 

[Krisken]

Yeah, he never made hard choices or anything.

 

[SpecialKO]

Yeah, he never made hard choices or anything.

He definitely doesn't have to make one now.
Added at: 15:31
I'm not trying to bag on Clinton, as you seem to think.

I'm just mystified why you think that his Presidency, taking place during a much less socially and politically and economically turbulent time, combined with his tough guy public speaking tour now, is even the remotest indication of what he would actually have done were he President in our current circumstances beyond the standard Democrat policy positions.

 

[Krisken]

It's not that I think you're bagging on Clinton. I'm saying I think, based on his past record with a Republican majority, he would have garnered a better deal, or at the very least prepared for the next fight instead of expecting them to do the right thing. He would have learned after the first stupid fight that he would face stupid opposition that would require a firm stance for later fights and knew how to use his political capitol.

It's like Obama forgot he's the President of the United States. Shit, even George W. Bush got shit done (a lot of shit, too) during his presidency with Democratic majorities. It's a hard job, and god damn it I expect him to do it with competence. Does he have a shit sandwich? Sure, but you'd think after the first two shit sandwiches he'd stop ordering it and figure out a way to get what he wants without going to the same well. The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[SpecialKO]

I feel like you remember the 90s as a bit rosier than I do.

Remember the Balanced Budget Act and the Omnibus Reconciliation Act? The numbers being negotiated and demanded by the Repubs wasn't even close to what we're looking at now, and this was in an era when you didn't have a growing grassroots movement calling for everything to be repealed/cut (mostly because the economy was very strong).

That said, you're definitely right about Clinton knowing how to garner political capital with the Republicans.

 

[LordRendar]

It's sad how politics isnt anymore about serving your country like you swore you would do when you got voted into office,but instead powerplay,petty revenge and grandstanding.
They would rather do nothing then maybe hurt their chances for reelection.Dosnt matter if the people suffer,as long es they themselfs go through it unscathed.

 

[TommiR]

Well lets see, Dems wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to get past the election to avoid being accountable, Republicans wanted to raise the debt ceiling enough to where it would come back around the election so they could use it to play politics.

Perhaps, but at least the addict still got a fresh shot to postpone the withdrawal symptoms. Yay.

 

[@Li3n]

 

[@Li3n]

Guess who got downgraded, boys: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Congratulations Boehner and the Republican Party clowncar

 

[Krisken]

I don't think Boehner would have gone nearly as far without the crazies to blame in his own party.

 

[Tress]

I'm going to extend the blame to everyone in Congress. They all need to get their shit together.

 

[@Li3n]

I love this picture:

http://nutsandolts.com/2011/08/06/tea-party-led-republican-party-kills-its-hostage/

The interesting part:

The simple answer is stated by Jason Easley in the first sentence of his post, Republicans Kill The Hostage As S&P Downgrades US Debt

S&P downgraded America’s debt because the Republicans have made the process of governing so dysfunctional that Washington can no longer be trusted to agree to make even the most basic decisions.​

In fact, that is exactly what Standard & Poor’s says in the Rationale section of it’s written explanation for the downgrade. Here is an excerpt:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions ,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and with ‘AAA’ rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population’s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see “Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even more Green, Now,” June 21, 2011).​

 

[Officer_Charon]

Okay... I know I'm going to receive an inordinate amount of flak for this... but why on earth do we have a debt ceiling if we can just vote it up when it becomes inconvenient?

It's my understanding (limited though it may be), that a debt ceiling is a limit on how much the government is allowed to borrow (something I also don't understand...), and if the government can just vote the limit upwards, what is the purpose of it in the first place?

 

[Krisken]

Felix Salmon of Reuters is right there with ya, Charon.

 

[Officer_Charon]

Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!

 

[DarkAudit]

Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!

Because no government program once begun, can ever be cut. It's easy to bitch about "government waste", and the studies into "cow farts" and "shrimp on treadmills" make good copy for the wingnut chat shows. But if that project is in your district, you fight like hell to keep that government money rolling in for as long as you can. And you have industry lobbyists pushing you and you colleagues to make sure it keeps rolling in. Forever.

tl;dr Cut ALL the programs! Cut *all* the programs?

 

[AshburnerX]

Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!

Debt gives us more funds to run our country on and is basically the only way to do so because of our political system, especially our anonymous political donation laws. If you try to raise taxes, you get called greedy and you won't get elected. If you try to reduce government spending to social programs, you get called heartless and you won't get elected. If you try to reduce military spending, you get called a coward and won't get elected...

So the only real option is to borrow from other nations and private finance groups to keep everything running. This works because, up until now, the average citizen wasn't really aware of how much we owed, who we owed it to, and exactly how much power our lenders have over our economy. Now that it's out in the open (mainly because the Tea Party lost their god damn minds), we may see a change in this.

 

[Officer_Charon]

Yeah... funny thing about bread and circuses....

 

[@Li3n]

Now... I'll be the first to admit that my knowledge of the U.S. political machine is disgustingly minimal, but... my momma always taught me to never get in debt in the first place.... why would we want MORE?!

Because if you don't you'll lose your house, the car, your job etc. and you'll have to live in a dumpster...

Or cut everything like the brits did and end up with rioting.

 

[Adam]

I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.

 

[Jay]

The economy is so bad that Anglina Jolie is adopting American kids now.

 

[TheBrew]

I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.

I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.

 

[Covar]

I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.

Spending more money than you're making is a very simple problem, with 3 simple solutions.

1) you can make more money
2) you can spend less money
3) you can make more money while spending less

Of course you could go the route our government picked, don't make more money while still spending more than you're making.

 

[Adam]

I do like the sound of it and you are correct in that no one will want it because everyone is targeted. However, I am always wary of 'simple solutions' as they can ignore complex problems. That wariness mostly comes from listening to the TEA party which have absolutely simple-minded solutions to every problem.

One issue is that a 1% cut every year will be more because of inflation, so it will actually be worse cut. Maintaining spending levels can be considered >1% cut if you factor in inflation.

Complex problems aren't solved by complex solutions, they're created by them. You can see that in the current US tax code. Not that I'm advocating the Fair Tax or anything but loopholes are created by the complexity of the system, not by its simplicity. Telling a department "You have to cut your expenditures 1%" is a relatively simple thing to do.

As for inflation, one of its root causes is government expenditure...

 

[TheBrew]

Spending more money than you're making is a very simple problem, with 3 simple solutions.

1) you can make more money
2) you can spend less money
3) you can make more money while spending less

Of course you could go the route our government picked, don't make more money while still spending more than you're making.

Not to say that our spending vs. revenue is unbalanced (because it is), but I think that you cannot really compare personal spending vs. government spending as they offer on much different principles. Business spending would be closer, but still not analogous IMO.

 

[Chad Sexington]

I thought this was a particularly marketable idea: http://www.onecentsolution.org/ Everyone understands "A Penny" and cuts are made across large swaths of the government without the politics of specifically targeting certain groups.

Of course, the fact that everyone gets targeted means no one wants it, so it'll never pass.

Two articles by a blogger which highlight some concerns with the Penny Plan:
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/29/the-mack-penny-plan-more-smoke-and-no-mirrors/
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/30/complaints-about-my-criticism-of-the-mack-penny-plan/

 

[TheBrew]

It brings up some good concerns vis-a-vis the plan's predictions on GDP and revenue, but holy Chocolate-Bunny-Pooping-Christ is that guy an idiot. I read his plan to fix the budget and it was insane. No money to protect our water supply?

 

[SpecialKO]

It's a good point about how revenue uncertainty is kind of a key factor in whether that kind of plan can ultimately work, but small across-the-board cuts with some flexibility doesn't seem like an overall bad idea.

EDIT: I think there also needs to be some focus on how money is spent, but cutting budgets can be an excellent motivator when it comes to streamlining.

 

[Adam]

Two articles by a blogger which highlight some concerns with the Penny Plan:
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/29/the-mack-penny-plan-more-smoke-and-no-mirrors/
http://www.libertyreborn.com/2011/07/30/complaints-about-my-criticism-of-the-mack-penny-plan/

His criticism seems to be based purely on "We don't know what's going to happen in 8 years re: GDP, budget, etc" which is a really....strange (Being nice here) line of argument against a plan. I want to buy a chocolate bar for lunch, but I don't know what's going to happen in 8 years, so I shouldn't..

He's advocating for even more drastic cuts which suggest he's not concerned about reality, he's concerned about ideology.

 

[Chad Sexington]

His criticism seems to be based purely on "We don't know what's going to happen in 8 years re: GDP, budget, etc" which is a really....strange (Being nice here) line of argument against a plan. I want to buy a chocolate bar for lunch, but I don't know what's going to happen in 8 years, so I shouldn't..

He's advocating for even more drastic cuts which suggest he's not concerned about reality, he's concerned about ideology.

Fair enough, I didn't explore his blog much... I had just happened across it (from another source), and having read about the plan here... Also while I understand economic concerns to an extent, I won't pretend at being any kind of expert.