If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill) Asinine Poll: voters don't know what the farking Debt Ceiling is, or they knowingly vote for politicians that run the nation like a boomer that takes out a 4th mortgage to get drunk in Cancun   (thehill.com) divider line 109
More: Asinine, Debt Celing, Cancun, Austan Goolsbee, economic data, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, political football, mortgages, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner  
•       •       •

4811 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Feb 2011 at 3:25 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



109 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-02-07 12:45:05 PM
it doesn't matter what the voters think. shiat - not even reality or common sense matter anymore. Both parties know what has to be done to salvage our long term economic future....but neither party has the will to do what must be done.

So instead they'll do the usual song and dance. The Republicans will cry 'SOCIALISM!', the Democrats will shout 'tax the rich!' and then the rank and file will bleat and stamp their feet in time with the music. meanwhile nothing will actually change and our debt spirals out of control.

pathetic.
 
2011-02-07 12:59:47 PM
Subby doesn't understand modern Government economics. It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air. That's a good thing. But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

Got it?
 
2011-02-07 01:02:32 PM
The third mortgage is for getting drunk in Cancun, subby. The fourth is to cover the divorce.
 
2011-02-07 01:16:26 PM
And the submitter apparently does not know how to spell "ceiling" correctly.
 
2011-02-07 02:21:23 PM
GaryPDX: But it's bad for small businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

FTFY since big business has the lobbyists needed to get a good bailout.
 
2011-02-07 02:30:05 PM
GaryPDX: It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air

Who, exactly, is saying this? Necessary to prevent a Great Depression II, yes. Good? No.
 
2011-02-07 02:33:18 PM
GaryPDX: It's okay for the government to spend mountains of money printed from thin air

Actually I think it comes from cotton.
 
2011-02-07 03:27:01 PM
Done in one.
 
2011-02-07 03:27:30 PM
GaryPDX: But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

I know you're just Gary being Gary, but there's a whole bond market out there wondering just what the hell you're talking about.
 
2011-02-07 03:29:35 PM
I bet they understand how to spell "ceiling" though, subby.
 
2011-02-07 03:30:23 PM
Weaver95: So instead they'll do the usual song and dance. The Republicans will cry 'SOCIALISM!', the Democrats will shout 'tax the rich!' and then the rank and file will bleat and stamp their feet in time with the music. meanwhile nothing will actually change and our debt spirals out of control.

I mean, one of those options will actually do something about the debt. You may not like how it did something about the debt but again, one would actually do something about it.
 
2011-02-07 03:31:40 PM
Whats a Debt Celing? Is it anything like a Debt Ceiling?
 
2011-02-07 03:31:40 PM
I know what the Debt Ceiling is, I just don't know why we bother to have it. It's not like it's an actual obstacle to ever-increasing deficit spending. As soon as it's time to raise it, the two parties engage in a little symbolic posturing, but it's just political theater.
 
2011-02-07 03:31:48 PM
theorellior: GaryPDX: But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

I know you're just Gary being Gary, but there's a whole bond market out there wondering just what the hell you're talking about.


Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Hell, businesses even have to follow much more stringent accounting rules. If the fed.gov had to follow GAAP, the national debt would probably double or triple without spending one more thin dime. Businesses have to carry future liabilities on their books. The fed.gov doesn't.
 
2011-02-07 03:32:10 PM
you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.
 
2011-02-07 03:34:18 PM
lennavan: Weaver95: So instead they'll do the usual song and dance. The Republicans will cry 'SOCIALISM!', the Democrats will shout 'tax the rich!' and then the rank and file will bleat and stamp their feet in time with the music. meanwhile nothing will actually change and our debt spirals out of control.

I mean, one of those options will actually do something about the debt. You may not like how it did something about the debt but again, one would actually do something about it.


But crying SOCIALISM while waving their tiny little fists just looks cooler while doing sound bites for their local media and fund raisers.
 
2011-02-07 03:34:29 PM
Celine Dion?

/got nuthin
//lol re: theorellior @ Garytard
 
2011-02-07 03:35:45 PM
...vote for politicians that run the nation like a boomer that who takes out a 4th mortgage...

FTFY subby.

/Is our children learning?
 
2011-02-07 03:37:21 PM
Every level of government is legally required to have a balanced budget, EXCEPT for the federal government. Brilliant.
 
2011-02-07 03:37:37 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

A fair point. And it is important to remember how we got here and not do it again. But we still have to deal with the reality of the situation. We either take out more loans, or we default. So people can talk all they want about responsibility but defaulting on current loans is hardly the responsible choice.
 
2011-02-07 03:38:46 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

The difference is the "government" has many of the contributors to its "means" whining for part of their contributions back and some contributors don't want to make any contributions at all to "its means".

Put another way, if your employer starts changing up you paycheck, based on who is managing this month, you too might have an issue "living within your means".

And did I mention that the roof [infrastructure] has to be fixed whether it is within your means or not.
 
2011-02-07 03:38:59 PM
When all you have are boomers everything looks like home equity loan.
 
2011-02-07 03:40:10 PM
lennavan: I mean, one of those options will actually do something about the debt. You may not like how it did something about the debt but again, one would actually do something about it.

Not in any meaningful way. You have to first find $1t in revenue before you've quit adding to the debt. Taxing the rich won't build that much revenue. In order to actually "do something" about the debt, you'd need to begin to REDUCE it. To do that in any meaningful way means finding no less than an additional $500b in revenue. At that rate we'd still be talking nearly 30 years before we eliminated the debt entirely, and that still doesn't recognize the increasing burden of Social Security.

Neither party has any kind of a meaningful plan. Taxing the rich won't do much, screaming socialism is worse, but ultimately it's going to mean difficult and deep cuts for all. The more you feed at the government trough, the more it will hurt, whether you're a retiree, a military contractor, or a school.
 
2011-02-07 03:40:36 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

Yes there is. There are lots of reasons to run a deficit, short term or otherwise. It increases the money supply and fuels economic activity, which generates tax revenue and helps fund the whole thing. Money is a fiction, and a national debt (particularly combined with foreign reserves) is a good thing in moderation.

That doesn't mean we didn't undertax and overspend ourselves into heck of a mess long BEFORE '09. The current super deficits are largely a product of recession; get the unemployment rate down under 8 percent and get corporations to start spending those huge cash reserves they've built up, and most of the current deficit goes poof.

The rest could be partly fixed by bumping the income tax rates back to Clinton levels. The major long-term fix, though, means reining in entitlement programs for old people. That's a political minefield, only with rabid honey badgers instead of mines.
 
2011-02-07 03:42:14 PM
a boomer that takes out a 4th mortgage to get drunk in Cancun

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

This is wrong?
 
2011-02-07 03:43:41 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

During recession? No not really. It has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling anyway.
 
2011-02-07 03:47:38 PM
First I have to wonder how the question was phrased. That's sort of important here to understand what seems like a wildly skewed poll.

Second, what alternative is offered by those who are adamant the ceiling not be raised? Default? Not just "Great Depression II" but likely World War III when the world financial markets collapse on news the US defaulted on its debt? I mean, is it really worth playing this game of chicken just to score some political points?

It is simply not possible to "cut spending" to avoid default at this point. Going forward after the ceiling is raised, sure, but right now it's either do it or watch civilization burn to the ground. As crazy as the teahadists are, I don't think they really want to see that. They certainly don't want to suddenly have to pay for their own hoverrounds and oxygen tanks.
 
2011-02-07 03:47:39 PM
I say we go back to trading chickens. Everything's been downhill since the government became socialist and started interfering the with private monetization industries. Government has no place in currency, and anyone who says otherwise is unAmerican.
 
2011-02-07 03:48:02 PM
well them, i'm getting myself some cognac and stogies on the way home. maybe i'll pay my creditors back. doesn't matter...it's good for us.

thanks guys!
 
2011-02-07 03:49:35 PM
im gonna go with choice B.
 
2011-02-07 03:49:44 PM
akula: The fed.gov doesn't.

Except for the interest on past debts, the federal government can arbitrarily decide you're not getting those benefits and then it doesn't owe that money to anyone.
 
2011-02-07 03:50:13 PM
We're already this far down, might as well just keep borrowing money until they won't lend it out anymore and then when that happens just threaten the world with our superior armed services and tell them we are not paying it back and what are you going to do about it.
 
2011-02-07 03:51:49 PM
akula: Not in any meaningful way. You have to first find $1t in revenue before you've quit adding to the debt. Taxing the rich won't build that much revenue. In order to actually "do something" about the debt, you'd need to begin to REDUCE it.

My point was that it would do something. You agreed. I'm glad we agree. Now, will increasing taxes completely fix the situation? Nope. Good thing I never said that.

I certainly agree, we need to do both, increase taxes on the wealthy and reduce the spending.

akula: The more you feed at the government trough, the more it will hurt, whether you're a retiree, a military contractor, or a school.

The government plays a vital role in society and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I cannot imagine you'd propose cutting funding to schools, medicare or social security. These are vital functions and promises the government has.

Let's agree, balancing the budget and continuing Democratic policies is fully possible. The last Democratic president left us with a projected budget surplus. He did so without cutting social security, without cutting medicare and without cutting school funding. The Republican president that followed him came to us, looked at his surplus and cut taxes while spending out of control. Meanwhile you have Republicans on the news and on Fark suggesting nation building in Iraq was a great success and we should do more of that.

How about no? Republicans talk about cuts but why is it we hear about them cutting funding for grandma's medications before we hear about them cutting funding for ridiculous military expenditures?
 
2011-02-07 03:52:29 PM
Headso: We're already this far down, might as well just keep borrowing money until they won't lend it out anymore and then when that happens just threaten the world with our superior armed services and tell them we are not paying it back and what are you going to do about it.

Stop shipping us the oil we desperately require for said armed forces to be worth a damn?
 
2011-02-07 03:53:00 PM
If only we had someone who was a great orator who could convince the voters, with reasoning and facts, why it good for the federal government to spend way beyond its means.
 
2011-02-07 03:53:14 PM
Weaver95: So instead they'll do the usual song and dance. The Republicans will cry 'SOCIALISM!', the Democrats will shout 'tax the rich!' and I'll look down and whisper, "No". They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.

FTFY


theorellior: GaryPDX: But it's bad for businesses and private individuals to spend beyond their means.

I know you're just Gary being Gary, but there's a whole bond market out there wondering just what the hell you're talking about.



Until the sovereign debt crisis finally unloads. Many banks overseas have lent well beyond their means (yeah, unfortunately we're not the only ones with greedy, reckless banks), then their governments (Ireleand, Portugal, Spain, Greece, etc. etc.) guaranteed the debts. Most of those countries had already spent themselves deeply into debt, so they didn't really have the resources to cover the guarantees they made in order to calm jittery investors. Then they got tangled up with guarantees from other Eurozone countries (like Germany) who guaranteed the debts of their imperiled brethren and now are in danger themselves by extension. So now there's all this bad debt floating around and we're all at a serious risk of a second, perhaps much nastier, economic global crisis. Hopefully we'll be able to avoid it, but there are a lot of economists being kept up at night by this possible threat.

So yeah, spending beyond your means is not something anyone should do in the long run, whether individual, bank or government. Short term? Fine, though I'm a fan of that spending being on some big infrastructure project which will increase the efficiency of the economy, so there is something tangible that will have benefits for years following.
 
2011-02-07 03:53:49 PM
Poll: voters don't know what the farking Debt Celing is, or they knowingly vote for politicians that run the nation like a boomer that takes out a 4th mortgage to get drunk in Cancun fix the roof that the previous owner SET ON FARKING FIRE!!!

/fixed that for you, dipshiat
 
2011-02-07 03:54:17 PM
Because no one on the news mentions how catastrophic it would be to not raise the ceiling.
 
2011-02-07 03:54:56 PM
Headso: We're already this far down, might as well just keep borrowing money until they won't lend it out anymore and then when that happens just threaten the world with our superior armed services and tell them we are not paying it back and what are you going to do about it.

China is currently surpassing us. That is something I hope Americans wake up to, realize and do something about and I mean quickly. Because they are a larger country than us, so to keep ahead of them, we have to do things better and smarter than them, not just equal or the sheer numbers will win.

For now we remain superior militarily. For now the center of discovery and research is the United States. Not for long.
 
2011-02-07 03:55:29 PM
What's wrong with selling debt, subby? Sounds like a plan to me
 
2011-02-07 03:58:11 PM
akula: Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Businesses don't have taxpayers, for one. They also roll over their debt quite a bit more than you assume. Governments also have longer time horizons. Ten years ago bond markets were a little nervous that the supply of Treasures was going to fall behind demand. Now there's too much of a good thing. Maybe in 2020 interest rates will be 21% and we'll be drowning in red ink. Maybe we'll be talking about the 2015 New Widget Boom and how it balanced the budget.

Debt, by itself, is not an evil thing. Sometimes you have to borrow. You just have to manage it properly. Knee-jerk responses like "No deficit spending EVAR!" are quite counterproductive.

I'm not saying the present trajectory is a good thing. Our political leaders need to make a deal akin to the '86 tax code revision or the '91 "no new taxes" raise. Soon enough, we will come to that point, and I'd prefer it to be sooner than later.
 
2011-02-07 03:58:36 PM
Debt ceiling: when I run out of money, I must wait for the next paycheck.
 
2011-02-07 04:01:13 PM
I'm a Boomer without a 3rd and 4th mortgage, so I am getting a real kick out of these replies.
 
2011-02-07 04:01:42 PM
I saw Celing in Vegas and she was absolutely astounding. By the time she'd reached "My Heart Will Go On" we were all on our feet giving her standing ovations. When Slash came on to join her in a rousing encore of "You Shook Me All Night Long", well, I don't have to tell you how awesome that was!

/Kumana beat me to the punch
//Felt like I might as well go there anyhow
 
2011-02-07 04:02:09 PM
lennavan: The government plays a vital role in society and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I cannot imagine you'd propose cutting funding to schools, medicare or social security. These are vital functions and promises the government has.

Let's agree, balancing the budget and continuing Democratic policies is fully possible. The last Democratic president left us with a projected budget surplus. He did so without cutting social security, without cutting medicare and without cutting school funding.


1) Until the government has spending and revenue at levels that are sustainable in the long term, nothing can be considered sacrosanct. Sorry, but yes, that means schools too- I don't go in for across the board cuts (the same amount to every program, regardless), but every citizen had a hand in creating this mess. Every citizen will end up feeling the pain of the cuts. Those who don't depend on the government for their daily bread will feel the hurt in higher taxes. Those who do will see less daily bread. The problem is to the point where the nation almost needs a Ramsey-esque financial makeover. That means not only cutting the cable bill and selling the luxury car, but going to plain label foods.

2) A "projected" surplus isn't a surplus. I'm not going to defend Bush's financial policy, I think it was indefensible. That doesn't mean the financial policies of the Democrats were right on. There's a reason politicians project out savings over 8-10 years... by the time those savings don't come to be, they are either forgotten or they're long gone. If they want to impress me, they need to come out with something showing savings before they're up for reelection, not when their successor will be running for term #2. And as I said, there was no actual surplus; it was counting Social Security monies as general revenue- a neat trick at the time, but we're damn close to where that is biting us in the ass.

3) As for your whining about cutting funding for Grandma's medications, that's part of why Bush's budget deficits were so bad. Medicare Part D started on his watch and was one of his programs. I have seen calls to examine military spending- as we should. But it isn't possible to cut our military to zero (something very few people think is realistic- not saying you are claiming this, just using it as an example) won't even balance the budget. Grandma, Junior, and those po' folks down the road are all going to have to hurt while we're smarting from the higher taxes. No other way for it.
 
2011-02-07 04:04:26 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: you can talk all you want about economic theory, but it's simply responsible for individuals to live within their means, and there is no excuse, economic or otherwise, for governments not to do the same.

That cat is out of the bag unfortunately. It's hard to be responsible when such a large portion of the country live in the imaginary world of faux news.

Cutting taxes for the rich elite who have all the money and expecting the government to be able to provide what we have come to expect as basic necessities for the 99% who are 'rabble' can't work.

The choices are to raise the debt ceiling and hope to heck the corporate republicans are ousted soon or don't raise it and watch the USA descend into a third world cesspool.
 
2011-02-07 04:05:24 PM
lennavan: China is currently surpassing us.

China shmina, they have a billion people and speak like 300 languages in a world where resources are becoming more and more scarce they'll have food riots and civil unrest before they become a real world power.
 
2011-02-07 04:05:46 PM
theorellior: akula: Those actually get paid back. Usually without having to issue more bonds to cover. If a business keeps on spending beyond their means year in and year out, just issuing more bonds every year, the bond rating goes into the shiatter, they can't get any more money, and they fold.

Businesses don't have taxpayers, for one. They also roll over their debt quite a bit more than you assume. Governments also have longer time horizons. Ten years ago bond markets were a little nervous that the supply of Treasures was going to fall behind demand. Now there's too much of a good thing. Maybe in 2020 interest rates will be 21% and we'll be drowning in red ink. Maybe we'll be talking about the 2015 New Widget Boom and how it balanced the budget.

Debt, by itself, is not an evil thing. Sometimes you have to borrow. You just have to manage it properly. Knee-jerk responses like "No deficit spending EVAR!" are quite counterproductive.

I'm not saying the present trajectory is a good thing. Our political leaders need to make a deal akin to the '86 tax code revision or the '91 "no new taxes" raise. Soon enough, we will come to that point, and I'd prefer it to be sooner than later.


Point. But businesses ultimately have to pay at least the interest on the notes. We're perilously close to having to borrow to meet just the interest payments. At that point we're well and truly farked.

Everything only gets more painful from here. I agree that the economy coming back will help, but I still think we aren't going to be able to tax our way out of this, not by taxing one particular group. Everybody shares the pain. From the rich folks and upper middle class feeling the bite through higher rates and removal of the FICA cap to the discontinuing of refundable income tax credits at the low end. If the government expects me to pick up more tax burden, I expect others to help shoulder this load too.
 
2011-02-07 04:06:29 PM
akula: lennavan: The government plays a vital role in society and to suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I cannot imagine you'd propose cutting funding to schools, medicare or social security. These are vital functions and promises the government has.

Let's agree, balancing the budget and continuing Democratic policies is fully possible. The last Democratic president left us with a projected budget surplus. He did so without cutting social security, without cutting medicare and without cutting school funding.

1) Until the government has spending and revenue at levels that are sustainable in the long term, nothing can be considered sacrosanct....


Good, raise taxes.

Next problem.
 
2011-02-07 04:06:31 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: well them, i'm getting myself some cognac and stogies on the way home. maybe i'll pay my creditors back. doesn't matter...it's good for us.

thanks guys!


Retarded false analogy is false and retarded. When you start issuing a reserve currency, then go treat yourself.

/Guess who we owe most of that money to? The people who have been getting their taxes cut continually since the '80s, with only a brief uptick in '93. Tax cuts on upper income brackets + deficit spending = investment opportunity for the people who bought the politicians who cut the taxes. And any time the economy dips down, cut taxes again (permanently) to get the economy going (temporarily). Brilliant!
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »