Originally posted by truejedi
for budget changes beyond that, yes. You paint too broad a picture by just saying "changes". If we go to war, or have a national crisis, THAT is reason to borrow. there should be no reason to borrow in everyday economic situations.
GDP is based on projections. It would be a percentage of a projection (one fiscal year out) of something that may not come to pass. A country needs to be able to react quickly to the idea that there are basic levels of uncertainly in economics. For that matter, how is the US expected not to borrow? Despite common rhetoric, the US isn't a family, its a sovereign nation. How would we get spending down that low? It hasn't been that way since 1971 (beneath 20% of GDP.) What would you cut? (and when would you cut it? Now?) When you fail to cut the necessary amount (and you will,) who's going to enforce the cap?
And say a crisis does come along? Who is going to rally 2/3's of Congress? We just had a major crisis and look what happened. A bunch of lunatics wanted to default.
well, if it is illegal not to cut the necessary amount, you would see the amount cut.
What to cut?
how about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44117256/ns/travel-news/
And last time we had a crisis, the Congress voted almost unanimously to take action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When national security is threatened, they actually do come together.
This so-called "crisis" regarding the debt ceiling was just a grand-stand for both sides to play politics. they weren't going to default, and they all knew it.
Originally posted by truejedi
well, if it is illegal not to cut the necessary amount, you would see the amount cut.
By who? If Congress can not agree to stay within the limit, then who will force cuts? There are only two other branches of government to pick from.
Originally posted by truejedi
What to cut?
how about this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44117256/ns/travel-news/
A drop in the ocean.
Originally posted by truejedi
And last time we had a crisis, the Congress voted almost unanimously to take action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When national security is threatened, they actually do come together.
Naturally security yes, economic crisis? No.
Originally posted by truejedi
This so-called "crisis" regarding the debt ceiling was just a grand-stand for both sides to play politics. they weren't going to default, and they all knew it.
They all knew it because one side (and a good number of non crazy Republicans, I hope) didn't want to enter that territory. Doesn't change the fact that a collection of freshmen decided to act like utter asshats and kill a bill that in any other congress would have had Republicans whooping for joy.
Originally posted by Lucius
By who? If Congress can not agree to stay within the limit, then who will force cuts? There are only two other branches of government to pick from.
It wouldn't be a matter of congress agreeing to stay within the limit, it would simply be a matter of them having no choice. No bill would be debated that would be spending more money than revenue was already bringing in.
A drop in the ocean.
You say this like you expect me to give you a detailed list of every Federal use of money that is a waste. The waste is there, and we both know it.
Naturally security yes, economic crisis? No.
I disagree. And since when is more spending the key to an economic crisis anyway? the problem we are facing now is a direct result of the ridiculous spending implemented because of the 08 stock dip. "too big to fail" ring a bell?
They all knew it because one side (and a good number of non crazy Republicans, I hope) didn't want to enter that territory. Doesn't change the fact that a collection of freshmen decided to act like utter asshats and kill a bill that in any other congress would have had Republicans whooping for joy. [/B]
Are you serious? It was the senate that blocked more than one spending bill that Boehner's Congress passed. Including one that blocked this amendment we are discussing right now. In the words of Nancy Pelosi "we won, get over it." and the Democrats refused to admit that after the 2010 election cycle. What is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander according to Harry Reid.
Originally posted by Lucius
[B]My parents have just expressed firm support for Michelle Bachmann... ugh. Of course, they haven't discovered Rick Perry. When they do, I have no doubt they will jump ship for him.
At the end of the day, both parties are incompetent and Ron Paul is a nutjob.
Originally posted by truejedi
It wouldn't be a matter of congress agreeing to stay within the limit, it would simply be a matter of them having no choice. No bill would be debated that would be spending more money than revenue was already bringing in.
You’re faith in Congress not cheating (privatization) like every state does for their budgets, is amusing. In any case if Congress wants to talk about a bill, they are going to find a way to talk about a bill. No one is going truly enforce a BBA.
Originally posted by truejedi
You say this like you expect me to give you a detailed list of every Federal use of money that is a waste. The waste is there, and we both know it.
I was attempting to illustrate that merely cutting waste isn’t going to bring us to 18% GPD. And most certainly, no one in Congress is going to take the axe to the budget. Not in that way; they like getting reelected.
Originally posted by truejedi
I disagree. And since when is more spending the key to an economic crisis anyway? the problem we are facing now is a direct result of the ridiculous spending implemented because of the 08 stock dip. "too big to fail" ring a bell?
Economy tanks, jobs lost, consumer confidence gets fvcked, profits fall, more jobs lost… and the all powerful magical hand of the markets does not perform thaumaturgy and rebalance itself (not in the amount of time your average voter wants.) If the government had just kind of stepped aside and did nothing, we would be more fvcked then we are now. When TARP was blocked the first time, the markets freaked out. This is basic Keynesian policy.
Originally posted by truejedi
Are you serious? It was the senate that blocked more than one spending bill that Boehner's Congress passed. Including one that blocked this amendment we are discussing right now. In the words of Nancy Pelosi "we won, get over it." and the Democrats refused to admit that after the 2010 election cycle. What is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander according to Harry Reid.
They blocked the bills Boehner passed because those bills were simply put, absurd. Zeno’s Paradox isn’t compromise. Boehner was offered a near 75/15 ratio of spending cuts (granted, Obama was vague on the specifics, but who isn't?) and attempts a raising revenue… and the Tea Party lunatics turned it down because Grover Norquist is the fourth branch of government.
Economy tanks, jobs lost, consumer confidence gets fvcked, profits fall, more jobs lost… and the all powerful magical hand of the markets does not perform thaumaturgy and rebalance itself (not in the amount of time your average voter wants.) If the government had just kind of stepped aside and did nothing, we would be more fvcked then we are now. When TARP was blocked the first time, the markets freaked out. This is basic Keynesian policy.
This is also basic residual fallacy. Politician acts, the act is unsuccessful, the politician/s claims we would have been worse off without the act.
What you're failing to understand is that the issues we are having now are mostly as a result of (besides the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of corporations and consumer) repeated government intervention into the markets. Therefore, you cannot use the "well if we just let the markets act accordingly" rationale as a basis for your argument because it's a misleading argument.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This is also basic residual fallacy. Politician acts, the act is unsuccessful, the politician/s claims we would have been worse off without the act.What you're failing to understand is that the issues we are having now are mostly as a result of (besides the fiscal and monetary mismanagement of corporations and consumer) repeated government intervention into the markets. Therefore, you cannot use the "well if we just let the markets act accordingly" rationale as a basis for your argument because it's a misleading argument.
QFT I really can't add anything to make that better.
Originally posted by Lucius
You’re faith in Congress not cheating (privatization) like every state does for their budgets, is amusing. In any case if Congress wants to talk about a bill, they are going to find a way to talk about a bill. No one is going truly enforce a BBA.
We are talking about bills that are simply illegal. Your entire argument is "we shouldn't make it illegal, because they are going to do it anyway?" Seriously? So murder shouldn't be illegal? Theft? Assault? Why bother to make it illegal, people are going to do it anyway....
I was attempting to illustrate that merely cutting waste isn’t going to bring us to 18% GPD. And most certainly, no one in Congress is going to take the axe to the budget. Not in that way; they like getting reelected.
Economy tanks, jobs lost, consumer confidence gets fvcked, profits fall, more jobs lost… and the all powerful magical hand of the markets does not perform thaumaturgy and rebalance itself (not in the amount of time your average voter wants.) If the government had just kind of stepped aside and did nothing, we would be more fvcked then we are now. When TARP was blocked the first time, the markets freaked out. This is basic Keynesian policy.
Exactly what DS said. The bailouts, supported by Bush and Obama have done much to worsen the problem, not helped it.
They blocked the bills Boehner passed because those bills were simply put, absurd. Zeno’s Paradox isn’t compromise. Boehner was offered a near 75/15 ratio of spending cuts (granted, Obama was vague on the specifics, but who isn't?) and attempts a raising revenue… and the Tea Party lunatics turned it down because Grover Norquist is the fourth branch of government.
Sure, Boehner's bills are ridiculous, but Obama's are perfectly good bills that Boehner is an idiot for turning down... that doesn't sound partisan at all..... It is absolutely untrue as well... Those elected were elected on a promise that they wouldn't raise taxes. Unlike Obama, they actually are keeping their word... remember obama's "No new taxes on familys making less than 250,000 a year? " Then his immediate raise on cigarette taxes?
Originally posted by Nephthyswell in my opion obama would be better if bush did not enter us in pointless wars for his own purposes people complain that obama does noting but who else is doing anything and its really hard to do something if his cabinet does not like him therefore he is stuck in a situation where he is forced to take things slowly but if Bill Clinton was here then we would be saved i hate his wife though she is a pig sorry for my grammar i have no intion of fixing it in my last weeks of summer
Wow, are there like, [b]any good politicians in America anymore? 😬That are actually in positions of power I mean. [/B]
Originally posted by truejedii agree on you with the keeping your word thing but he is doing something great with cigarette taxes so that the country at least makes some more money on something that badly affects health and that way we may see a down fall in that type of buisness
We are talking about bills that are simply illegal. Your entire argument is "we shouldn't make it illegal, because they are going to do it anyway?" Seriously? So murder shouldn't be illegal? Theft? Assault? Why bother to make it illegal, people are going to do it anyway....They will have NO CHOICE but take the axe to the budget. Once again, you are underestimating the power of the Constitution of the United States. Making it an amendment is the only chance it has of ever being balanced. Supreme Law of the land and all that malarky.
Exactly what DS said. The bailouts, supported by Bush and Obama have done much to worsen the problem, not helped it.
Sure, Boehner's bills are ridiculous, but Obama's are perfectly good bills that Boehner is an idiot for turning down... that doesn't sound partisan at all..... It is absolutely untrue as well... Those elected were elected on a promise that they wouldn't raise taxes. Unlike Obama, they actually are keeping their word... remember obama's "No new taxes on familys making less than 250,000 a year? " Then his immediate raise on cigarette taxes?
Originally posted by truejedi
We are talking about bills that are simply illegal. Your entire argument is "we shouldn't make it illegal, because they are going to do it anyway?" Seriously? So murder shouldn't be illegal? Theft? Assault? Why bother to make it illegal, people are going to do it anyway....
I don’t think you quite understand my point. Who watches the lawmakers? In any case, it isn’t about “why bother” it’s about what’s practical. The BBA isn’t practical, and almost every year there would be a gridlock as favors and pet projects are traded for the necessary votes. You speak of the law as if Superman chills outside the Capitol Building, threatening to break anyone that circumvents it.
Originally posted by truejedi
They will have NO CHOICE but take the axe to the budget. Once again, you are underestimating the power of the Constitution of the United States. Making it an amendment is the only chance it has of ever being balanced. Supreme Law of the land and all that malarky.
You need to stop reading Redstate. The majority of the states have BBAs… and they are almost always circumvented. In terms of actual policy, they don’t work and state politicians have become exceptionally adept at making their budgets look clean when they really aren’t. But hey, you can return to your Palinesque fantasy land where the Constitution solves all problems.
Really all you’re doing is projecting. The Constitution is this old document with authority, and so every Teabagger and his gun suddenly become “constitutional conservatives” and say “look, I agree with this really old and important legal document, which also agrees with me!” Everyone has their own Constitution, just like everyone has their own Founding Fathers.
Originally posted by truejedi
Exactly what DS said. The bailouts, supported by Bush and Obama have done much to worsen the problem, not helped it.
I’ll concede this point since quite frankly, I don’t know. I suspect you don’t either.
Originally posted by truejedi
Sure, Boehner's bills are ridiculous, but Obama's are perfectly good bills that Boehner is an idiot for turning down... that doesn't sound partisan at all..... It is absolutely untrue as well... Those elected were elected on a promise that they wouldn't raise taxes. Unlike Obama, they actually are keeping their word... remember obama's "No new taxes on familys making less than 250,000 a year? " Then his immediate raise on cigarette taxes?
Sure Obama’s bills are ridiculous, but Boehner’s are perfectly good bills that Obama is an idiot for turning down… that doesn’t sound partisan at all….
Obama offered him almost 4 trillion in cuts for 800 billion-1.2 trillion in revenue increases mainly through loopholes (you should have seen Daily Kos when that hit the news.) The fact that the Teabagger lunatics signed the antitax pledge and kept to it with a religious fervor to embarrass a suicide bomber, only makes them morons. The public should be more concerned that these imbeciles are so busy brownnosing Grover Norquist that they blew one of the best deals offered to the Republicans in recent times. Simply put, no meaningful deficit reduction will take place without some kind of revenue increase. The suits at S&P made the very same comment.
I’ll concede this point since quite frankly, I don’t know. I suspect you don’t either.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Considering that both QE1 and QE2 did nothing but create negligible artificial growth while increasing both our deficit and national debt, I [b]do know and I suspect so do you, if you think about it. Now we're all waiting for the "Great Correction". [/B]
This is confusing.
Are the QEs the same as a stimulus?
Obama offered him almost 4 trillion in cuts for 800 billion-1.2 trillion in revenue increases mainly through loopholes (you should have seen Daily Kos when that hit the news.) The fact that the Teabagger lunatics signed the antitax pledge and kept to it with a religious fervor to embarrass a suicide bomber, only makes them morons. The public should be more concerned that these imbeciles are so busy brownnosing Grover Norquist that they blew one of the best deals offered to the Republicans in recent times. Simply put, no meaningful deficit reduction will take place without some kind of revenue increase. The suits at S&P made the very same comment. [/B]
So your entire argument is that these politicians are morons for not lying to us? You apparently don't want the same kind of politician that I do...