Will the US government default on its debt before Greece does?
The fact that I can even pose the question tells you we live in peculiar times.
With its next tranche of money from the IMF-EU bail-out now assured, we can say with some confidence that the Greek government will not default next month. Incredibly, the same cannot be said of the US Federal Government.
Just so we're clear: the world is a lot more dependent on the "full faith and credit" of the US than it is on Greece.
A default by the US government - even a temporary, "technical" default - would be a very serious matter, not only for the US but for the global financial system. That is why the smart money has always said it won't happen; that Congress and the White House would come to an agreement in the eleventh hour.
I am in Washington today, and I can report that the smart money is still saying this. It is probably right.
But we are now getting very close to the eleventh hour and - unlike the battle to authorise the budget back in April - this can't be resolved 20 minutes before the government shuts down.
From where we are, default is far from the most likely outcome, but it is certainly conceivable.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14025485
Greece or the USA to default first?
Greece or the USA to default first?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
This is all driven by the loony fringe on the right that actually wants the government to go bankrupt.
They don't want the US to have a Social Security system. They don't want the US to have Medicare. They don't want the US to have a public education system. Etc., etc., etc.
They know that they can't get their radical agenda approved by popular vote. They know that what they want is not what most Americans want.
But that doesn't matter. They know better than we do what is good for us.
So they're going to have to teach us a lesson. If tens of millions more Americans have to go unemployed, if tens of millions more Americans face foreclosure, well, that's the price we pay for ideological purity.
Except that it's not "we" who will pay the price.
The people pushing this insanity are not the ones who will be in bankruptcy court. They will not be the ones getting evicted. They will not be the ones dying for lack of medical treatment.
They will be sitting around in their soft cushy chairs enjoying their soft cushy lobbyist-funded lives. While the rest of the country goes down the shitter.
And they will be smiling the whole time, knowing that theirs is the righteous cause. We need to be educated, and they are the ones to provide that education.
Hey, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs ....
They don't want the US to have a Social Security system. They don't want the US to have Medicare. They don't want the US to have a public education system. Etc., etc., etc.
They know that they can't get their radical agenda approved by popular vote. They know that what they want is not what most Americans want.
But that doesn't matter. They know better than we do what is good for us.
So they're going to have to teach us a lesson. If tens of millions more Americans have to go unemployed, if tens of millions more Americans face foreclosure, well, that's the price we pay for ideological purity.
Except that it's not "we" who will pay the price.
The people pushing this insanity are not the ones who will be in bankruptcy court. They will not be the ones getting evicted. They will not be the ones dying for lack of medical treatment.
They will be sitting around in their soft cushy chairs enjoying their soft cushy lobbyist-funded lives. While the rest of the country goes down the shitter.
And they will be smiling the whole time, knowing that theirs is the righteous cause. We need to be educated, and they are the ones to provide that education.
Hey, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs ....
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Right now THey're playing chicken THe debt ceiling will be raised the only question is if it will get doe before or after they crash.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
I hope that you are right, Crackpot. I hope that the nutjob movement fails.
But where are the adults?
Where are the people saying "Look, kids, we can fight all this out in the budget negotiations. And we'll be on the same side. We oppose tax increases as much as you do. We favor spending cuts as much as you do. And we'll get that done. Or, at least, we'll try as hard as we can -- we're not in control of what the other side does. But meanwhile, we need to prevent the US from defaulting on its already existing debts."
Where are they?
For crying out loud, when Newt Gingrich -- not exactly a poster-child for centrism -- was running the House, we managed to get a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually worked. How about some more of that?
But no. The fringers do not want a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually works. On the contrary, they're deathly afraid of a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually works. It's their worst nightmare.
Their ideology needs governmental insolvency. And they're willing to wreck the economy to bring that about if they have to. And what happens to ordinary Americans be damned.
Where are the grown-ups?
But where are the adults?
Where are the people saying "Look, kids, we can fight all this out in the budget negotiations. And we'll be on the same side. We oppose tax increases as much as you do. We favor spending cuts as much as you do. And we'll get that done. Or, at least, we'll try as hard as we can -- we're not in control of what the other side does. But meanwhile, we need to prevent the US from defaulting on its already existing debts."
Where are they?
For crying out loud, when Newt Gingrich -- not exactly a poster-child for centrism -- was running the House, we managed to get a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually worked. How about some more of that?
But no. The fringers do not want a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually works. On the contrary, they're deathly afraid of a bipartisan, conservative economic policy that actually works. It's their worst nightmare.
Their ideology needs governmental insolvency. And they're willing to wreck the economy to bring that about if they have to. And what happens to ordinary Americans be damned.
Where are the grown-ups?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
I think that's exactly right.Right now THey're playing chicken THe debt ceiling will be raised the only question is if it will get doe before or after they crash.
I also think that if the government goes into default, regardless of the policy merits one way or the other, the lion's share of the blame will fall on the Congress as far as the public is concerned for one very simple reason:
When one side in a dispute is seen as willing to compromise, and the other is not, the one that isn't willing to compromise is the one that will be blamed when things go south.
Forcing a debt default is not only politically stupid in my view, but if your goal is to reduce federal spending it is idiocy squared. Even a brief default will drive up interest rates on T-Bills (thus driving up the cost of of borrowing and increasing the debt ) and cost more in lost jobs and thus lost tax revenue, further driving up the debt.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
The part which has caused the median income to go down for 11 year (the only time this has happened since the depression) and which caused the worst economic collapse in 80 years has not stopped committing treason yet.
They may be stupid enough to fuck us even deeper.
yrs,
rubato
They may be stupid enough to fuck us even deeper.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Here's my take on the political dynamic in play currently within my party on The Hill, particularly in the House.
The number of members of Congress that are personally, unalterably ideologically committed to no government revenue increases, (not just tax rate increases) ever, under any circumstances, no way no how is relatively small...
The Tea Party Caucus in The House currently has 50 members, (one fewer than in the last Congress, btw) out of a GOP membership of 240 and not even all of them hold this absolutist, maximalist view.
So why are they able to hold such disproportionate influence over the process?
The reason is simple. While there are probably not more than 30-40 members of the House who are ideologically committed on the issue, there are probably another 100 who live in mortal terror of the prospect of getting a primary challenger who will run around yelling "Congressman So and So voted to raise taxes!" if they support any form of revenue increase. And since the more ideologically pure folks have a disproportionate impact on primaries, (particularly when you get as far down the ballot as the House District races, which have very low turnouts) they take this threat seriously.
However, these folks ought to be asking themselves what good surviving a primary challenge is going to do them when the grannies who didn't get their Social Security checks, and the small business people who went under because the government loan check or government contract payment they were expecting didn't show up, and the homeowners who's houses went into foreclosure because they lost their jobs when these businesses went under, and the people who saw their 401 Ks tank yet again when the market went into a tailspin because of the government default, and the parents who see their kids kicked out of college because of the loan or grant check that didn't show up, and the men and women laying their lives on the line in the armed forces who didn't get their pay checks, cast their votes in November.....
Make no mistake. How this will shake out politically for members of Congress, (yes, it will also be bad for Obama, but that isn't going to help Joe or Jane Congress Member) is very clear.
When one side is offering a deal where they will give you five dollars of what you want for every one one dollar of what they want, and you don't take it, and a disaster ensues....
YOU are going to get blamed. Period. No matter how ideologically noble you may think your position is, or how clever you think you may be in taking the position to avoid a primary challenge.
The number of members of Congress that are personally, unalterably ideologically committed to no government revenue increases, (not just tax rate increases) ever, under any circumstances, no way no how is relatively small...
The Tea Party Caucus in The House currently has 50 members, (one fewer than in the last Congress, btw) out of a GOP membership of 240 and not even all of them hold this absolutist, maximalist view.
So why are they able to hold such disproportionate influence over the process?
The reason is simple. While there are probably not more than 30-40 members of the House who are ideologically committed on the issue, there are probably another 100 who live in mortal terror of the prospect of getting a primary challenger who will run around yelling "Congressman So and So voted to raise taxes!" if they support any form of revenue increase. And since the more ideologically pure folks have a disproportionate impact on primaries, (particularly when you get as far down the ballot as the House District races, which have very low turnouts) they take this threat seriously.
However, these folks ought to be asking themselves what good surviving a primary challenge is going to do them when the grannies who didn't get their Social Security checks, and the small business people who went under because the government loan check or government contract payment they were expecting didn't show up, and the homeowners who's houses went into foreclosure because they lost their jobs when these businesses went under, and the people who saw their 401 Ks tank yet again when the market went into a tailspin because of the government default, and the parents who see their kids kicked out of college because of the loan or grant check that didn't show up, and the men and women laying their lives on the line in the armed forces who didn't get their pay checks, cast their votes in November.....
Make no mistake. How this will shake out politically for members of Congress, (yes, it will also be bad for Obama, but that isn't going to help Joe or Jane Congress Member) is very clear.
When one side is offering a deal where they will give you five dollars of what you want for every one one dollar of what they want, and you don't take it, and a disaster ensues....
YOU are going to get blamed. Period. No matter how ideologically noble you may think your position is, or how clever you think you may be in taking the position to avoid a primary challenge.
-
quaddriver
- Posts: 759
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 4:40 am
- Location: Wherever the man sends me
- Contact:
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
I would disagree with the first sentence. the 'LFOTR' wants the reverse - at the cost of a vastly reduced second, third and forth sentence as you wrote it.Andrew D wrote:This is all driven by the loony fringe on the right that actually wants the government to go bankrupt.
They don't want the US to have a Social Security system. They don't want the US to have Medicare. They don't want the US to have a public education system. Etc., etc., etc.
....
I hate to say it, but the 'LFOTL' wants and is bankrupting the country. Federal programs and payouts have never been higher EVER - in terms of absolute magnitude or per captia. And we are approaching 51% of the earners in this country paying in ZERO, yet taking most of the entitlements out. It might be kinder and gentler, but it is a shitty way to run a railroad (see: Penn Central c. 1968)
I made a point about two years ago than any balance to any budget it gonna come on the backs of the middle class. We cannot and will not survive with an effective zero tax bracket topped at $50K. I am not a super rich but the super rich can and do pay income tax at credit card default rates. The problem is, the super rich do not number enough to fill even a 'small city'
As I have repeated over and over: what do you call a 100% tax rate on those making over $200K a year and a zero defense spending budget? Answer: A huge defecit.
The problem is, in a nutshell, once we started subsidizing people to take, accept and stay in low paying jobs by removing incentive via the EITC - we doomed ourselves. (this does not attempt to or intend to address the fact that every right or left leaning admin since carter - or before - has conspired to send better paying jobs to the rice bowl) IT is no accident that walmart et al load the front of the store with flat screen tvs and blue dvd players around feb1 thru april 15. You all can see the documents and I have at times linked them in, but the EITC filers are 'first up' each year - the exact second the W2s must be in the peoples hands, and web services like 'tax act' etc are growing faster percentage wise than Amazon or google.
Our priorities are topside down and lets be frank, having an admin that ran on a plank of 'I will end the 2 theatre war' and turned it into a '3 and a half theatre war with no end in sight' aint exactly showing fiscal restraint elsewhere.
And as I have also said, no one in office knows how to fix it. And why would they? They are lawyers. No offense but the forte of lawyers is not global fiscal policy. And sadly, there is no one in the pipe for the 2012 carnival who knows how to fix it either. Like it or not, the 'LFOTR's policy of 'spend nothing and pout', will do more good financially, than harm.
And dont forget Andrew, the LFOTL is who bailed out all the 'banks' at 100 cents on the dollar. Forget TARP. That was a FRACTION of the money spent. And it was the only fraction accurately tracked.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Don't Forget Norquist and his buddies treatening to raise high hell over anyone voting to increease revenue in ANY fashion.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Adults? You are looking for ADULTS in this?
Consider: The Democrats in Congress have not proposed a budget in more than two years. Nothing. And not a single proposal to REDUCE spending. None. Their unalterable strategy is to let the Republicans propose one thing or another, then denounce those Republicans as fucking one constitutency or another, "to protect tax breaks for the rich!" This is their electoral strategy. It has nothing to do with principle or policy or philosophy. It is pure politics.
A recent proposal was made to change the method of calculating the cost of living increases for SS recipients. It is now based on wage inflation, and the proposal was to change it to price inflation. This would have the effect of keeping the retirees current with the cost of things but no more than that (and the current calculation is even more of an un-warranted benefit, since the vast majority of them have fixed housing costs). It is a small thing, tentatively agreed to by the President of the Senate, one Mr. Biden, but as soon as the word leaked out, Ms Pelosi jumped in front of the cameras to denounce this attempt to screw retirees to protect tax cuts for the "wealthy." It might save as much as $100B over the next ten years, and it is a small concession that was agreeable to both sides.
Adults.
235 Republicans signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Not a few on the fringe. 235.
Why not?
(a) No economist would support a tax increase on the very people who create private sector jobs during a deep and continuing recession. Its effects would likely be disastrous, resulting in even more unemployment than we have now. Further, the truly wealthy would simply move, shelter, defer, and forego the very income that the Progressives would like to tax. It has happened in the past and there is no reason to suppose it would not happen if a significant tax increase were passed now. A tax increase does not necessarily result in an increase in revenue because those who are paying the lion's share of the taxes (entrepreneurs) have the ability to substantially alter their tax incomes in any given year. And they dont' like being taken advantage of.
(b) Even if we taxed the top 10% of earners at 100% of their taxable incomes, and they somehow miraculously continued to earn the same amount year after year, it would only make a marginal impact on the budget deficit. The problem with the federal deficit is on the SPENDING side, not on the REVENUE side. More poignantly, ENTITLEMENTS must be curtailed in some way, and the DEMOCRATS are strategically unwilling to discuss entitlement cuts.
(c) The people of the U.S. have spoken. The republicans who surged into the U.S. House in the 2010 elections, and even many of the Democrats who were re-elected, were voted in based on the explicit or implicit promise not to raise taxes. Andrew is half-correct: People don't want their benefits touched; but he is also half-wrong. People want the Federal Government to start to take seriously the need to live within its means, and that means getting serious about spending BEFORE you ask anyone to pay more to fund this cluster-fuck we call our Federal Government.
To say that the Republicans are being irrationally stiff-necked about taxes is to ignore the other side of the aisle, where they are irrationally stiff-necked about REAL spending cuts - not reductions in the rate of growth or "scaling back" the stimulus packages that - by the way - DIDN'T WORK!
"Shovel-ready projects." Really?
The Democrats' strategy for the next two years is to perpetuate the myth that if "The Rich" were paying their "fair share" of taxes, everything would be hunky dory. From a mathmatical standpoint this is provably false, but the Dems know that most of the public (and ALL of their core constituency) is too stupid to see this, so they continue to harp on the mantra "...protecting tax cuts for the rich..." Indeed, any time those words are spoken, the speaker is exposed as an empty shell, concerned with nothing more than staying in power through lies and deception.
Adults. Really.
Consider: The Democrats in Congress have not proposed a budget in more than two years. Nothing. And not a single proposal to REDUCE spending. None. Their unalterable strategy is to let the Republicans propose one thing or another, then denounce those Republicans as fucking one constitutency or another, "to protect tax breaks for the rich!" This is their electoral strategy. It has nothing to do with principle or policy or philosophy. It is pure politics.
A recent proposal was made to change the method of calculating the cost of living increases for SS recipients. It is now based on wage inflation, and the proposal was to change it to price inflation. This would have the effect of keeping the retirees current with the cost of things but no more than that (and the current calculation is even more of an un-warranted benefit, since the vast majority of them have fixed housing costs). It is a small thing, tentatively agreed to by the President of the Senate, one Mr. Biden, but as soon as the word leaked out, Ms Pelosi jumped in front of the cameras to denounce this attempt to screw retirees to protect tax cuts for the "wealthy." It might save as much as $100B over the next ten years, and it is a small concession that was agreeable to both sides.
Adults.
235 Republicans signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Not a few on the fringe. 235.
Why not?
(a) No economist would support a tax increase on the very people who create private sector jobs during a deep and continuing recession. Its effects would likely be disastrous, resulting in even more unemployment than we have now. Further, the truly wealthy would simply move, shelter, defer, and forego the very income that the Progressives would like to tax. It has happened in the past and there is no reason to suppose it would not happen if a significant tax increase were passed now. A tax increase does not necessarily result in an increase in revenue because those who are paying the lion's share of the taxes (entrepreneurs) have the ability to substantially alter their tax incomes in any given year. And they dont' like being taken advantage of.
(b) Even if we taxed the top 10% of earners at 100% of their taxable incomes, and they somehow miraculously continued to earn the same amount year after year, it would only make a marginal impact on the budget deficit. The problem with the federal deficit is on the SPENDING side, not on the REVENUE side. More poignantly, ENTITLEMENTS must be curtailed in some way, and the DEMOCRATS are strategically unwilling to discuss entitlement cuts.
(c) The people of the U.S. have spoken. The republicans who surged into the U.S. House in the 2010 elections, and even many of the Democrats who were re-elected, were voted in based on the explicit or implicit promise not to raise taxes. Andrew is half-correct: People don't want their benefits touched; but he is also half-wrong. People want the Federal Government to start to take seriously the need to live within its means, and that means getting serious about spending BEFORE you ask anyone to pay more to fund this cluster-fuck we call our Federal Government.
To say that the Republicans are being irrationally stiff-necked about taxes is to ignore the other side of the aisle, where they are irrationally stiff-necked about REAL spending cuts - not reductions in the rate of growth or "scaling back" the stimulus packages that - by the way - DIDN'T WORK!
"Shovel-ready projects." Really?
The Democrats' strategy for the next two years is to perpetuate the myth that if "The Rich" were paying their "fair share" of taxes, everything would be hunky dory. From a mathmatical standpoint this is provably false, but the Dems know that most of the public (and ALL of their core constituency) is too stupid to see this, so they continue to harp on the mantra "...protecting tax cuts for the rich..." Indeed, any time those words are spoken, the speaker is exposed as an empty shell, concerned with nothing more than staying in power through lies and deception.
Adults. Really.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
The policy issues you raise (and others) should, dgs49, be addressed in the process of coming up with next year's budget. Raising the debt ceiling is necessary for us to pay the bills which we have (or by 2 August will have) already incurred.
Running up a huge credit-card debt which one cannot afford is foolish. But if one has already done so, saying "to hell with it; I just won't pay it" is childish.
This is akin to a dispute between a frugal spouse and a spendthrifty spouse. And the frugal spouse says to the spendthrifty spouse "If you don't cut down your spending, I'm going to let our home mortgage go into foreclosure."
Madness.
Running up a huge credit-card debt which one cannot afford is foolish. But if one has already done so, saying "to hell with it; I just won't pay it" is childish.
This is akin to a dispute between a frugal spouse and a spendthrifty spouse. And the frugal spouse says to the spendthrifty spouse "If you don't cut down your spending, I'm going to let our home mortgage go into foreclosure."
Madness.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
The difference, quaddriver, is that whereas policies of the lefties may result in insolvency, the ideology of the loony right requires insolvency.
As I have pointed out before, we had a conservative, bipartisan policy in operation, and it was working. We had shifted from a budget deficit to a budget surplus, and that enabled us to start paying down the debt.
The problem for the loony-fringers -- not the conservatives; the radical reactionaries -- was precisely that the policy was working. It was turning out that we could, after making various changes, afford Social Security and Medicare and public education and public infrastructure. It was turning out that we could do those things and remain solvent.
That was their nightmare. In order for their ideology to hold up, it must be the case that we cannot do those things and remain solvent.
So they set about making that happen. They have deliberately attempted to bankrupt the government. For the precise purpose of bankrupting the government.
Where are the conservatives when we really need them?
As I have pointed out before, we had a conservative, bipartisan policy in operation, and it was working. We had shifted from a budget deficit to a budget surplus, and that enabled us to start paying down the debt.
The problem for the loony-fringers -- not the conservatives; the radical reactionaries -- was precisely that the policy was working. It was turning out that we could, after making various changes, afford Social Security and Medicare and public education and public infrastructure. It was turning out that we could do those things and remain solvent.
That was their nightmare. In order for their ideology to hold up, it must be the case that we cannot do those things and remain solvent.
So they set about making that happen. They have deliberately attempted to bankrupt the government. For the precise purpose of bankrupting the government.
Where are the conservatives when we really need them?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
It really doesn't matter that the D's have been juvenile for the past two years (at least as much as the R's are now), or that the level of spending is the real problem, a deal has to be done and it is hard to imagine the R's getting a better one without risking the entire economy (which already appears to be in stall mode, no doubt due in part to the budget uncertainty). Even if you agree with most or everything dgs says, my guestimates are that about 35-40% of the country would like to see less reductions in the rate of spending increases and higher taxes. 30-40% think the outline of the deal Lord Jim describes is a good way to go. That leaves about 25-30% who are so fed up with trillion dollar deficits, they are willing to cut of their noses to spite themselves. As a political compromise, it really is a no-brainer (David Brooks point in his column yesterday) for R's to finalize the deal that is on the table -- they will get credit for forcing large reductions in spending increases, while raising revenue in the least harmful ways (closing deductions rather than increasing marginal rates). And the country's businesses can get back to focusing on making good things happen, rather than worrying if the ceiling is going to cave in.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Neither the level of spending nor the level of taxation is the real problem, at least in the near and medium terms. The disparity between them is the real problem.
But this is not the way to address that problem. No matter what one thinks about what we should do in the future, we need to raise the debt ceiling now, or we are going to default on obligations we have already incurred.
Spending cuts? Tax increases? Loophole closings? Entitlement reforms? Military spending reforms?
Whatever. Deal with all those things (and others) in the budget process.
But at this moment, what we need to do is ensure that we will not default on existing obligations. Unless Congress is going to decide that we should just blow off our existing obligations -- which would be economic disaster for the country (and probably the world) and political suicide for the people involved -- we need to raise the debt ceiling now.
Screw all this brinksmanship. Just do the adult thing: Enable us to pay our existing obligations, and then fight about what obligations we should or should not continue to incur and how we should pay for whatever those turn out to be and all that.
Congress -- members of both parties in both Houses -- need to grow up.
But this is not the way to address that problem. No matter what one thinks about what we should do in the future, we need to raise the debt ceiling now, or we are going to default on obligations we have already incurred.
Spending cuts? Tax increases? Loophole closings? Entitlement reforms? Military spending reforms?
Whatever. Deal with all those things (and others) in the budget process.
But at this moment, what we need to do is ensure that we will not default on existing obligations. Unless Congress is going to decide that we should just blow off our existing obligations -- which would be economic disaster for the country (and probably the world) and political suicide for the people involved -- we need to raise the debt ceiling now.
Screw all this brinksmanship. Just do the adult thing: Enable us to pay our existing obligations, and then fight about what obligations we should or should not continue to incur and how we should pay for whatever those turn out to be and all that.
Congress -- members of both parties in both Houses -- need to grow up.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Let us keep rearranging the deck chairs, shall we.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
There is a minority within my party on The Hill, (who's voices are receiving a resonance far beyond their numbers) that see the argument over the debt limit not as a way to reign in out of control government spending, but as a vehicle for repealing large portions of The Social Contract.... ; a way to impose their Neo- Spencerian view of what they believe the Constitution allows and does not allow at a single stroke.....
Folks who believe that many of the settled 20th century Constitutional issues like Social Security, unemployment compensation, medicare, etc, should now be re-opened for debate....
Whatever else this view is, there's one thing it is for certain; political suicide. Poll after poll after poll shows that the American people have no interest in dismantling the fundamentals of the social contract as defined by the programs put in place in the last century; and anyone who thinks that formula is the way to achieve and maintain political power is in for a rude awakening.
The Republican Party came to power in the House in 2010 because of Obama and Pelosi's policies failure to create JOBS....
The 2010 elections weren't about not raising taxes; let alone about what the Constitutional role of government should be....
The 2010 election was about dissatisfaction with the failure of Obama and Pelosi to get the economy moving again....
And my party was the happy beneficiary of this dissatisfaction; and if they try to read any more into it than that, or over reach, (as Pelosi did) then they will lose the majority they won.
Folks who believe that many of the settled 20th century Constitutional issues like Social Security, unemployment compensation, medicare, etc, should now be re-opened for debate....
Whatever else this view is, there's one thing it is for certain; political suicide. Poll after poll after poll shows that the American people have no interest in dismantling the fundamentals of the social contract as defined by the programs put in place in the last century; and anyone who thinks that formula is the way to achieve and maintain political power is in for a rude awakening.
I'm sorry, but that's not really factually accurate; The GOP won the majority in the House in 2010 not because, (unlike 1994, when they had an actual program) the electorate was turning to them because they embraced a particular approach voters found appealing;The people of the U.S. have spoken. The republicans who surged into the U.S. House in the 2010 elections, and even many of the Democrats who were re-elected, were voted in based on the explicit or implicit promise not to raise taxes.
The Republican Party came to power in the House in 2010 because of Obama and Pelosi's policies failure to create JOBS....
The 2010 elections weren't about not raising taxes; let alone about what the Constitutional role of government should be....
The 2010 election was about dissatisfaction with the failure of Obama and Pelosi to get the economy moving again....
And my party was the happy beneficiary of this dissatisfaction; and if they try to read any more into it than that, or over reach, (as Pelosi did) then they will lose the majority they won.
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
[clarification required]
In the UK and Aus, the party in power must for each year of office, set a budget for the country for the coming year. This is debated on, and voted on, but its passage is normally guaranteed.
How does the budget for the US get set?
[/clarification required]
Additional note; in plain English please.
In the UK and Aus, the party in power must for each year of office, set a budget for the country for the coming year. This is debated on, and voted on, but its passage is normally guaranteed.
How does the budget for the US get set?
[/clarification required]
Additional note; in plain English please.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
I know you don't need it but, I agree...And my party was the happy beneficiary of this dissatisfaction; and if they try to read any more into it than that, or over reach, (as Pelosi did) then they will lose the majority they won.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
This is true and was a major factor, but the other big factor was the belief that the things they did were liberal ideology projects, rather than efforts to try to get the economy going. Examples are healthcare reform, the so-called stimulus bill, and the humongous deficits. The president, who is supposed to be excellent at communication (and does give a nice speech), could not make the case that these initiatives were intended to get the economy going; maybe because they really were about liberal ideology and not about the economy. So, to bad economy, add over-reaching on ideology. Unfortunately, the minority you describe is repeating the 1995 and 2001 mistakes of over playing their "mandate".Lord Jim wrote:
The 2010 election was about dissatisfaction with the failure of Obama and Pelosi to get the economy moving again....
Re: Greece or the USA to default first?
Which U.S. Senator said with respect to the debt ceiling being raised:
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. . . . Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.” Then voted against raising the debt ceiling.
That and other interesting views with respect to the debt ceiling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. . . . Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.” Then voted against raising the debt ceiling.
That and other interesting views with respect to the debt ceiling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html