Financial News

[southsider2k5]

"I hope we gave a little lesson to the people in Washington because the debt ceiling is a lot easier to fix than this was," - New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, on the NFL lockout deal.

 

The NFL labor situation is more complex than the federal deficit? Stick to football Kraft.

[StrangeSox]

The NFL labor situation is more complex than the federal deficit? Stick to football Kraft.

 

It's a lot easier to fix the manufactured debt ceiling crisis, which is separate from a deficit problem. It could be done with a one-page bill.

[Balta1701]

The NFL labor situation is more complex than the federal deficit? Stick to football Kraft.

Stick to, I dunno, reading? He said "Debt ceiling", not "Federal deficit". The debt ceiling can be fixed very, very easily. It could just be raised, as it has been dozens of times before.

[StrangeSox]

Or eliminated, since it's pretty dumb anyway.

[Y2HH]

Or eliminated, since it's pretty dumb anyway.

 

No, it's not.

[StrangeSox]

Stick to, I dunno, reading? He said "Debt ceiling", not "Federal deficit". The debt ceiling can be fixed very, very easily. It could just be raised, as it has been dozens of times before.

 

Well, the GOP has managed to make it the "entire fiscal policy of the US" problem, not a debt ceiling raise.

[southsider2k5]

Stick to, I dunno, reading? He said "Debt ceiling", not "Federal deficit". The debt ceiling can be fixed very, very easily. It could just be raised, as it has been dozens of times before.

 

Of course you know the deficit is what causes the debt, which is what puts us up against the debt ceiling right? Then again the NFL situation could have been done instantly too, but the NFL ownership turned this into a manufacturer crisis. Funny how that works.

[StrangeSox]

No, it's not.

Something that gets bumped up routinely and thus has no effect or can be seriously exploited for ideological gain by a party willing to actually let us hit it? Seems pretty dumb.

[Balta1701]

Or eliminated, since it's pretty dumb anyway.

I understand the point behind it, there used to be a real defense. It's actually not a bad thing to have Congress have a mechanism by which it can force a default if it so chooses, defaults have happened before and nations have recovered, and there's nothing a priori wrong with having Congress have protest votes now and then; they're going to anyway.

 

But at this point, defaulting with no good reason other than not liking the President suggests that we've entered a different phase, where the existence of this vote does way too much harm to exist any more.

[StrangeSox]

Of course you know the deficit is what causes the debt, which is what puts us up against the debt ceiling right? Then again the NFL situation could have been done instantly too, but the NFL ownership turned this into a manufacturer crisis. Funny how that works.

 

You can raise the debt ceiling very, very easily to avoid destroying the economy which will only worsen the deficit.

[southsider2k5]

Something that gets bumped up routinely and thus has no effect or can be seriously exploited for ideological gain by a party willing to actually let us hit it? Seems pretty dumb.

 

Like I said, sounds exactly like the NFL labor situation, doesn't it?

[southsider2k5]

You can raise the debt ceiling very, very easily to avoid destroying the economy which will only worsen the deficit.

 

You can also not lock the players out very easily too.

[StrangeSox]

Like I said, sounds exactly like the NFL labor situation, doesn't it?

 

The NFL situation couldn't be fixed with a single vote on a single line item. You can't conflate debt with deficits and then accuse him of saying something dumb.

Edited July 26, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

I understand the point behind it, there used to be a real defense. It's actually not a bad thing to have Congress have a mechanism by which it can force a default if it so chooses, defaults have happened before and nations have recovered, and there's nothing a priori wrong with having Congress have protest votes now and then; they're going to anyway.

 

But at this point, defaulting with no good reason other than not liking the President suggests that we've entered a different phase, where the existence of this vote does way too much harm to exist any more.

 

This I agree with. Removing a control put in place for a very specific purpose isn't wise. That said, defaulting for political reasons isn't what the control is meant for. I feel the same at my job, as the network firewall guy...people see me as a nuisance that prevents easy access...but that's exactly my purpose. That control is in place for numerous reasons, one specifically being that the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable, like many other "votes" in congress.

 

It's there for many a reason and needs to stay for many a reason, whether you find it to be a nuisance or not.

[Balta1701]

This I agree with. Removing a control put in place for a very specific purpose isn't wise. That said, defaulting for political reasons isn't what the control is meant for. I feel the same at my job, as the network firewall guy...people see me as a nuisance that prevents easy access...but that's exactly my purpose. That control is in place for numerous reasons, one specifically being that the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable, like many other "votes" in congress.

 

It's there for many a reason and needs to stay for many a reason, whether you find it to be a nuisance or not.

At this point though, it's no longer a nuisance. It's a legitimate, direct threat to the country. It'd be that you decided to remove the firewall if you didn't get a raise. In that case, the right move is to get rid of the power to remove the firewall...(here meaning, to fire you).

[bmags]

Let's just remind everyone that this is money that congress already agreed to spend in december, but is now threatening to ruin everyone in the world's lives because they voted on it in december.

[Y2HH]

At this point though, it's no longer a nuisance. It's a legitimate, direct threat to the country. It'd be that you decided to remove the firewall if you didn't get a raise. In that case, the right move is to get rid of the power to remove the firewall...(here meaning, to fire you).

 

The basic point is that the control needs to be there for many reasons, the main one being so the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable for it.

 

Without the control, there is really nobody to blame...it's there for a reason and needs to remain there for a reason.

 

What if, in 20 years, the republicans gain majorities in the house/senate and presidency and decide to wage war with Russia on credit and just pump the debt to 100 trillion...because there's nothing in place that says they at least have to vote? All of these controls are there for a reason, mostly accountability.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

What if, in 20 years, the republicans gain majorities in the house/senate and presidency and decide to wage war with Russia on credit and just pump the debt to 100 trillion...because there's nothing in place that says they at least have to vote? All of these controls are there for a reason, mostly accountability.

Well, there used to be this thing called the "War Powers Act" that required Congressional approval for wars as well.

 

Of course, we're ignoring that right now too.

[Y2HH]

Well, there used to be this thing called the "War Powers Act" that required Congressional approval for wars as well.

 

Of course, we're ignoring that right now too.

 

I've decided I'm going to be like Washington and ignore you, despite the SoxTalk bill of rights saying we must always read and agree with everything you say.

[StrangeSox]

This isn't being used for "accountability" and never has been in the past. It seems far too easily exploitable if one party really deludes itself into believing that it won't really be a big deal to run into the debt ceiling. Do other governments have similar arbitrary limits on debt?

[southsider2k5]

The basic point is that the control needs to be there for many reasons, the main one being so the people can hold those who vote for it/against it accountable for it.

 

Without the control, there is really nobody to blame...it's there for a reason and needs to remain there for a reason.

 

What if, in 20 years, the republicans gain majorities in the house/senate and presidency and decide to wage war with Russia on credit and just pump the debt to 100 trillion...because there's nothing in place that says they at least have to vote? All of these controls are there for a reason, mostly accountability.

 

The most mind blowing part of this is that our leaders are portraying it as a good thing that they blindly signed off on these increases and didn't challenge them. Like somehow not fulfilling a fiduciary duty is now somehow a solid policy position.

[StrangeSox]

*cough* bush tax cuts *cough*

[southsider2k5]

*cough* bush tax cuts *cough*

 

*cough* Obama tax cuts *cough*

[StrangeSox]

*cough* Obama tax cuts *cough*

 

Yeah, those were really dumb too, he shouldn't have caved to terrible Republican fiscal policy, but he did. So both he and the Republicans can own those.

[Balta1701]

The most mind blowing part of this is that our leaders are portraying it as a good thing that they blindly signed off on these increases and didn't challenge them. Like somehow not fulfilling a fiduciary duty is now somehow a solid policy position.

The issue there is...they are signing off on every bit of the debt. Congress passes the budget, the President can't just spend money out of no where. Every cent of the evil debt has been approved by Congress once already. Every cent of that out of control spending gets passed by Congress. They already signed off on the debt that would guarantee we'd hit the debt ceiling when they passed the tax cut package last December.

 

The only purpose of the debt ceiling is to give Congress a mechanism by which it can force a default. If there's another mechanism I'd love to hear it.