Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-12/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Republican candidates came out swinging against each other and President Obama in their third debate last night. Aides to Texas Governor Rick Perry confirmed he will enter the race, while the other eight GOP candidates will be tested in Iowa’s straw poll. House minority leader Pelosi filled in the final three slots on the deficit supercommittee. The Fed promised to keep interest rates near zero for the next two years. And, for the first time in its 115-year history, the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved by more than 400 points for four consecutive days. A panel of journalists join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent, The New York Times.
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists talk about whether the newly formed deficit supercommittee is likely to reach a consensus in the coming months:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"Daniel stated
As to your one example of the post office vs. private sector, you may not realize that the postal service is providing services to the public and are bound by law to not compete on their basic service. We decided as a nation (thanks Benjamin Franklin) and written into our constitution to have a national postal system. We have to decide as a nation if we want to continue this at a loss, hike prices or transition away from first class mail with universal delivery to Internet (thanks govt.) But that is a policy choice, not a market decision. And, oh by the way, delivering a letter across the nation to any person for less than a buck... priceless...ok 44 cents"
Daniel:
The post office is presently competing with the private sector(overnight mail,First Class,etc) but does not allow private industry to compete in delivering mail door to door. They were not doing this 30 yrs ago when Federal Express was first becoming well known for this type of delivery.
The main point that I wanted to get across is that if one of the bureaucratics in upper management within the Post Office had the forsight to forsee other forms of " communications "(Fed Ex & Internet), possibly the Post Office would not be in the present predictment it find itself. Does not mean it has to run as a for profit but at least break even not 7 billion in the hole.
I bet you that if free competion would go head to head with Post Office we could see lower rates than 44 cents.
John Doe:
How about all this crushing debt that we the tax payer are facing today and we didn't have all those social programs during Herbert Hoover.
I alway thought that the tea party was more word of month. Just simple middle class people that have to pay taxes for those 50% of those that don't while also paying for the problems of those due to break downs in moral ethics.
Class warfare and the pursuit of wealth redistribution are the product of the feeble minded. Wasting time with thoughts of what others have and what you do not have is a tar pit of self destruction.
Live within your means, accumulate your own wealth through frugality and accept that every decision you make in life has a dollar cost to it. This country offers unlimited potential for everyone, to tear the country down because of green eyed jealousy will only make the things you seek to improve worse.
The bowls of Chicago has produced the most petty divisive ideas of class hatred this country has seen in a long time, a breeder of contempt and moral decay. A self serving racist who's conceit and arrogance will take us years to recover from if ever.
mchaun wrote:
"But 2 examples of the other side of that coin."
I'm not sure how you manage to pack so much stupid in one post, but you keep outdoing yourself.
Dole and McCain were sacrificial lambs in political environments that no Republican could have won. Anyone with a lick of sense knew that then and knows that now.
"After the GOPs have been told who to nominate by the Bushes" ...
I don't know if there is treatment for BDS, but you've got an incredible case of it. This last post makes for a positive diagnosis. Now exactly which Bushes are dictating who the GOP must nominate? GW? GHW? Barbara? Jeb? or one of the girls? Hey, maybe it's Prescott, come back from the dead!
You know, mchaun. In addition to being dishonest (a la "Bush Boot Licker" comments), statements like "GOPs have been told who to nominate by the Bushes" absolutely crushes your credibility on this and pretty much any other topics. Serious posters will have a tendancy to just skip over what you write. And the sad fact is, you don't even realize it. But then, I've never given you that much credit for intelligence ... Professor Einstein.
I thought mchaun is funny, we know what kind of porn he likes which says quite a bit. Being right does not mean much anyway these days, probably never did.
Dear meangreen,
If your whole argument against government revolves around the postal system, I am not sure what to say. Some things are best done by small companies, some by larger companies, some by democratic institutions (like government), some by NGOs/non-profits. For the postal system, the founding fathers of this country knew that a postal service was crucial for democracy, commerce and families which is why it was included in the Constitution. For an explanation of the laws regarding postal system services, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes .
Of course, FedEx and UPS have done well for themselves. But they are not the postal system. And despite your pronouncement that a private sector organization could beat the USPS on price for delivering letters universally at the same price, that does not an argument make. And without government regulations, the private sector would have not need to deliver to everywhere.
And personally having directed millions of mail pieces and seen how well the postal system works over and over again for business and personally, and the amazing efficiency of the OCR technology, etc, your complaints seem rather minor and more ideological than based on facts on the ground.
The government is a great tool for people to accomplish great things. Of course, other organizations like corporations (government chartered entities) are designed to be good tools for other things. But this is fluid situation where we should use the best tool for a job, not let ideology lead us to poor judgments.
Daniel
Congress needs to read The Constitution...We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, INSURE domestic tranquility...don't forget the third letter SSI, Social Security Insurance. So if a Judge who says we cannot require citizens to obtain Insurance then also you have people who want a refund.
Congress needs to read The Constitution...We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, INSURE domestic tranquility...don't forget the third letter SSI, Social Security Insurance. So if a Judge who says we cannot require citizens to obtain Insurance then also you have people who want a refund.
citizencontact wrote:
"Of course, the Internet and GPS among thousands of major advances that are gifts from government--major wealth centers for the private sector."
Just so we're clear. The internet would not have happened without the concept of packet-switching, which came out of the head of Paul Baran not some government bureaucrat. Baran was working for RAND corporation, an offshoot of Douglas Aircraft (and the concept was actually conceived by him some years before that - you can find interviews with Baran on the web where he talks about that).
As for GPS it owes heavily to physicists working at Johns Hopkins, a private university.
Now, I'm not arguing against the idea that many good things have come out of research made possible by government funding. But, generally, when it does, it comes out of areas that are constitutionally mandated like the military. When was the last great breakthrough that came out of Social Securiy Administration, or the Department of Housing and Urban Development? But still, the majority of inventions that have changed the course of human history in the latter centuries have come out of the private sector.
The light bulb
The telephone
The automobile
The transistor (perhaps the greatest invention for the first 90 years of the 20th century)
The integrated circuit
The personal computer
Just so we are clear. The Internet was an outgrowth of DARPA, a government program, then NSFNET and then a gift to the world. There were other electronic networks and the Internet, and despite competition and doubts, we now all use the Internet. The web browser, Mosaic, too came from a government office. And GPS is a government gift that millions use for free every day of the week. And Johns Hopkins, a non-profit institution, receives hundreds of millions in government grants each year to do basic and applied research. And NIH/NCI, Department of Commerce, NASA and many other departments have been major innovators.
And it is government regulations through USPTO, Patent office, that the private sector profits from innovations.
It is wonderful that great inventions come from inspired persons and groups. Sometimes with government support, sometimes not, sometimes in government.... I do not worry where the next major life saving idea comes from, just that bright, educated and inventive people are able to develop them.
Are you worried that our democratic government does good things? Your argument that government is less capable, especially parts not carved in a stone version of the constitution, seems more like antipathy than reason with back filling ideological assertions with cherry picked proof.
Ideological hatred of government /democratic institutions has worried me. No human institution is infallible, corporate, charity, government.
Daniel
Daniel:
I was using the Postal Service as one example of an entity that has and had a usefull purpose. However the consumer is moving away from this type of communications but the PS has not been innovative or slow to change.
I question whether in todays economics environment a private corporation who's given a contract to deliver mail will not deliver to a certain location in the continental USA. They might even come up with an innovative product or service to have that mail delivered to that address.
Let use other examples, Amtrak, SS, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.
1.Amtrak may run profitable routes in the NE, but perhaps not in the South.
2. Who do you think messed up the SS Trust. Democratics in 1966 when they started borrowing off it. There is no Trust today. What comes in from payroll and SS taxes from out paychecks goes right back to retirees. Projected deficits this year in SS is 45 Billions. Sound like SS is a failure for future beneficiares. This is why I believe that SS could make money off the stock market if given the chance which would help future retirees.
Bottom line we are losing much money and it is costing us taxpayers more to keep these entities going.
Yes, the postal service may be eclipsed by the Internet. The postal service like most networks are most efficient at 100%. And it is during a transition period, that the government through an imperfect, yet democratic process, balances the interests of the people. Much of the lack of progress of the Postal Service is based on regs that demand universal service, but avoid using their monopoly to squeeze out other businesses. My opinion is that seniors and rural interests depend on the postal service and policy should support them, even if it would seem cheaper to just cut them off for profit's sake.
There are many other areas where private interests are sufficient to meet the needs of the people. But for example with your transport example, Amtrak does not sit on its own, but is enmeshed in the transportation ecology, with roads that are govt built, individuals owning their cars, airplanes, exhaust issues, traffic issues, energy issues. And the answers deserve considered responses with actual scientific analysis and stakeholder participation, not ideological responses.
And you are much mistaken about Social Security. The govt borrowing from the trust fund is a way for SocSec to get a return. Of course, it could be like a mutual fund. But that has problems with market volatility and govt ownership of corps (stocks are ownership). We decided as a policy matter not to let seniors starve to death or beg in the streets. SocSec is the realization of that promise. Any changes must ensure that promise. (with markets, any past performance is no guarantee for future returns) And people should be aware that the only unfixable problem with SocSec is that it is a huge sum of money that is an inviting target to plunder by the wealthy, and is easier to plunder if the public is fooled into believing it is insolvent.
And we are not actually losing that much money, just recent imbalances in taxes and wages have led to a problem that could be fixed quickly with a re-balance.
Daniel,
"Just so we are clear. The Internet was an outgrowth of DARPA, a government program, then NSFNET and then a gift to the world"
I have been in IT my entire life. I know it and I know its history. Just so we are clear, the internet would not exist without the concept of packet switching. That idea came out of the head of Paul Baran. Sorry, you can't deny that. From that grew ARPNET, the first "version" of the internet. Packet switching compares to a network like a fishing net compares to an airline route map. That was the brilliant insight of Paul Baran.
"Are you worried that our democratic government does good things?"
Nice try.
"Your argument that government is less capable, especially parts not carved in a stone version of the constitution, seems more like antipathy than reason "
"My argument that government is less capable" isn't an argument at all! It's a presentation of history!
If government were more capable or even AS capable, we should just abolish private industry and private markets completely! That's what the ethanol fiasco tried to do.
"Ideological hatred of government /democratic institutions has worried me"
That's akin to me saying "ideological hatred of our Constitution has worried me". Those statements are meant to inflame, not move a discussion forward so can it.
Your a statist, Daniel. I get that. Come here, dump your statist ideology. I don't care. But I will not be silent while you misrepresent history.
whoa, there ecgberht-
I never denied that Baran or Turing or Cerf or Berners-Lee or Andreeson among thousands of untold people working in academia, private companies, governments, etc. were not responsible for the creation and success of the Internet. Rather I said the Internet as we now have is an outgrowth of government projects which have caught on with the whole world. I am very aware of the thousands of RFC's (Requests for Comment), ICANN, Network Solutions and other aspects of the Internet, which are not just technical breakthroughs, but an amazing conglomeration of organizations, standards, relationships/partnerships, rules, etc. The Internet is a so far successful, hybrid of governments, private cos, associations, individuals, collectives and corporations working together and independently.
Despite your "statist" label, I am anti-ideology and a pragmatist, with a bias for democratic processes over others. I have been accurate and cited others about history. I know history is vast and it is easy to pick citations that meet an internal bias, but I try to be careful. And I have never said governments, even when representational, are the best or perfect place for all control or decisions. I am not a statist, or any other label you can think of. I am...
Daniel
" I am not a statist"
Of course not! You just agree with every statist view!
Like this one:
"And you are much mistaken about Social Security. The govt borrowing from the trust fund is a way for SocSec to get a return."
No it isn't! The very idea that government could borrow from the FICA that workers have paid to pay for social justice programs is appalling! Now the "trust fund" holds billions in IOUs and the FG, UNABLE TO BUY THEM BACK, must depend on current FICA contributions to pay retirees! That is ok with you!!! By the way, the ability to actually pay retirees based on contributions will end soon, as meangreen has laid out. In other words, the FG will be upside down on the SS trust fund without vast increases in debt. By some accounts they are upside down already.
I'm not going to argue with you whether the SS program was created as a good or worthwhile or not. You describe it as "keeping old people from living in the streets" - which was what it was designed to do. It was created as a safety net. But it's not a safety net. It's a retirement program. That's a problem.
Now ... getting back to the trust fund. Imagine if the FG had never borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. Imagine if the trust fund contained cash in some form instead of IOUs. Government would be a fraction of its bloated size and there would be plenty of money to pay retirees.
Your defense of the raiding of contributions of workers to pay for expanded government DEFINES you as a statist Daniel.
Oh, and one more thing. You speak of "thousands" of contributors to the internet. Please describe for me, how the internet would exist without the work of Baran and the concept of packet switching which he developed.
In answer to the question: Why is more government control the answer? It isn’t always the answer—only in those countries that have moved so far to the right as to become oligarchies. Where did this idea come from that the absence of government creates free societies? (I think I can answer that: Ronald Reagan.) Anybody who has ever played Monopoly ought to be able to appreciate that the goal of capitalism is not to create the best quality product at the lowest price for consumers, but to control and consolidate wealth, corner your markets, and subordinate people to your interests (preferably with the help of a corrupt political system). I wish right-wingers would make up their minds about which ideology they support. Fair weather laissez-faire capitalism don’t make it. What we have now is tantamount to taxpayer-financed capitalism.
I’m always hearing this argument that if government were run like a business, we wouldn’t have such a huge national debt. If government were run like a business, it would have let the banks fail back in ’84 (with the Fed bailout of Continental Illinois), or ’88 (with the bailout of the Savings and Loan Industry), or ’99 (with the bailout of Long Term Capital Management), or even in ’08, when our debt was much lower. If it had, there would be no discussion about who was to blame—deregulated private industry, left to its own devices. But, no, it’s best to leave it all up to the smartest guys in the room, right? They’re smart, all right. What an irony that the same reactionary ideologues who warn of a one-world-government are actually creating one with their anti-government rhetoric, which, by default of government, will surely create a global, pro-finance, anti-democratic corporate state. We already have many examples to choose from, around the world, in terms of what works in the best interests of people and what doesn’t. To learn more about how deregulation and privatization destroys democracies as well as economies, the book, Chile’s Free Market Miracle: a second look provides some very instructive insights. Begun under Pinochet’s rule on advice from “the Chicago Boys,” it destroyed fisheries, disrupted (eliminated) public transportation, increased poverty, and plundered successful public industries. They still haven’t recovered, and can now boast of being a country with one of the highest disparities of wealth in the world, just behind China and the U.S. (See Gini Index)
Hmmm. Again, I did not deny that Baran was the father of packet switching, a necessary and key component of TCP/IP. Nor is that point antithetical to anything I said. (and hoping for a swift and problem transition to IPV6, you know, to address addressing).
Nor does your repetition of your labeling of me make it so. And I think labeling others impairs your ability to argue cogently with them.
And you seem not to have an accurate understanding of how Social Security works, but that is my opinion. I would counsel others to do deeper research starting at http://ssa.gov/ and other places. I have already done as much as I can in a chat to explain it.
I appreciate the vigor and quantity of your opinions if not their quality. I hope others take away the best of both and do their own homework. I wish the DRShow did a better job of primary education on the issues it covered to make these conversations more productive.
Daniel
"Nor does your repetition of your labeling of me make it so"
This is not my label, Daniel. You were the one who said borrowing from the SS Trust fund was a good idea. The definition of stateism is as follows: "The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
That is what your posts seem to support and I show you example after example in our exchanges.
"And you seem not to have an accurate understanding of how Social Security works, but that is my opinion."
Really?! What did I say that led you to that opinion? Point to one thing that has left you wondering and I will try to explain.
"gbloper wrote:
In answer to the question: Why is more government control the answer? It isn’t always the answer—only in those countries that have moved so far to the right as to become oligarchies. Where did this idea come from that the absence of government creates free societies?"
No gbloper, that is incorrect. Think of India at independence in 1948, the first president of India Niro( Father of Women President Ghandi) was a socialist. He was afraid to let small business compete due to fear that a selected few individuals would grab the nation's wealth. Laws were created to make it difficult for small business along with wealthy individuals to expand into new ventures.
The Federal burecracy of India grew to employe many of the student graduates. These were coveted positions. Remember that for each caste their was a certain quota. In the meantime the economy hardly grew while the population increased and poverty too. Federal bureaucracies in India made it difficult to expand businesses by endless paperwork and corruption.
But as a whole a bureacracy does the dirty work that politicians can't or won't do.
It was not until the 90's that free entrerprise in India was allowed more freedom and the rest is history.
You will find that the more suppressives governments, Socialists or leftist in nature like Iraq, Sryia, Belarussia, Cuba use more control via bureacratics than right leaning free entrerprise countries.
Ms. Solberg tells us that Ms. Bachmann's saying that wives should be submissive to their husbands only applied to religious matters. Can Ms. Solberg explain what Mr. Bachmann's choice of Ms Bachmann's occupation has anything to do with religion?
gbloper wrote:
"Anybody who has ever played Monopoly ought to be able to appreciate that the goal of capitalism is not to create the best quality product at the lowest price for consumers, but to control and consolidate wealth, corner your markets, and subordinate people to your interests (preferably with the help of a corrupt political system)."
True, that why competition is such a good thing. It can force a product leader to be innovative and cost efficient because that is what consumer demand. Not like the old days a company could tell a purchaser "take or leave it".
"gbloper wrote:
I’m always hearing this argument that if government were run like a business, we wouldn’t have such a huge national debt. If government were run like a business, it would have let the banks fail back in ’84 (with the Fed bailout of Continental Illinois), or ’88 (with the bailout of the Savings and Loan Industry), or ’99 (with the bailout of Long Term Capital Management), or even in ’08, when our debt was much lower. If it had, there would be no discussion about who was to blame—deregulated private industry, left to its own devices"
No gbloper: That is another misnomer. Banks by there nature were very conservative in their lending. But it was politicians hoping to get votes from the electorate that laws were enacted to allow less qualified individual to borrow money and there on the banks got into other ventures that they have never gotten into.
Reinvestment Act of 1977: This made banks to make loans in disadvantage areas or face a fine. Now if I was a private lender lending money to somebody, I would want to make sure their was some kind of colleteral that would be forfeited to me in the event that my loan was not paid back. If that person did not have any assets if they defaulted, I would not lend them money. Remember assets have to include all the time I spent and expense incurred in making a loan.
During the mid 90, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros made it even easier for individual who were marginal to get homes. Part of "fairness" that Libs believe in.
So in many ways government and politicians were the major causes to the financial meltdown.
Dear ecgberht,
L'etat ce n'est pas moi. But you keep repeating the same things... that makes you a re-statist. I point out that SocSec gets a return on lending funds which gets a better return than holding cash, and pointing out that fact makes me a statist. That conclusion being wrong makes you a mis-statist.
Other things you got wrong.
Study after study conservs more gen... AEI and the other one seemed suspect and means-spirited (yes, that is a pun).
UNABLE TO BUY THEM BACK -- not just untrue, but it would be illegal
actually pay retirees based on contributions will end soon -- based on the untruth that us bonds wont be paid back and/or the govt wont come through on an authorization (law), so this earns a double untruth
then the whole weirdness about the Internet, where the facts were used improperly (Socrates is dead, all cats die, Socrates is a cat...)
Please, please, take some time to get past the propaganda and learn how these systems actually work. Or if you really know, then accurately describe them.
Daniel
There are a few MOs that I run across with liberals. I've seen yours before. You are educated and everyone else is ignorant and you need to teach them stuff so we can learn "how these systems actually work". So, let's unravel that fantasy right here and now, shall we?
"based on the untruth that us bonds wont be paid back and/or the govt wont come through on an authorization (law), so this earns a double untruth"
If everything you say is true, why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling (I think that's the "authorization" part of your babbling above)? Why was a debt downgrade even ever discussed? You must be Tim Geithner's twin! You have absolutely no clue as to the financial condition of the United States Treasury. Perhaps your solution is to just print money (i.e. just add dollars to the Federal Reserve)? Go ahead, show us how smart you are.
"UNABLE TO BUY THEM BACK -- not just untrue, but it would be illegal"
I don't think you even get the CONCEPT of what a Treasury Bill is. At least not so's anyone could tell. Frankly, YOUR ignorance is starting to wear thin, Daniel.
"then the whole weirdness about the Internet, where the facts were used improperly "
Really, which part was non sequitur to you? (you can look up that term with Google). Go ahead, put it simply so all we ignoramouses can understand.
Do you even know how much you're embarrassing yourself?
Not being a liberal or a statist, your modus operandi comment sounds silly to me. If you are saying that arrogance is only trait of persons with certain political philosophies, that is really funny. Just say you think that I am arrogant (kettle/black).
On the debt ceiling, well, the Congress has to authorize the executive branch to borrow money up to a certain point. It had been mainly a procedural aspect of governing, till this year. And despite your mis-statism, there was nothing new or extraordinary about the financial condition to make this anything more than procedural issue this year. Separately, you could make the case that if the government failed to find investors for its debt instruments, that would be significant (the opposite was true at the first Treasury auction-apparently smart investors know US debt is still the safest place for dollars). The only immediate danger is that a certain political party is willing to stop governing rationally or responsibly.
I don't think I am embarrassing myself, but I would be fine if someone helped me with a real correction. Unfortunately, that person isn't you.
Daniel
from http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1969
-The current payout of Social Security benefits in excess of taxes will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments for many years.
SocSec authorization
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title42/pdf/USCODE-2009-title42...
re: TBills
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tbills/res_tbill.htm
re: SocSec invests in Treas Sec.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n2
Treasury auction results:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2011/R_20...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/usa-treasury-auction-idUSN1E76...
"Just say you think that I am arrogant "
You're arrogant.
"On the debt ceiling, well, the Congress has to authorize the executive branch to borrow money up to a certain point... blah, blah, blah "
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. I didn't ask, "mechanically" how raising the debt ceiling works. I didn't ask "What is the history of the debt ceiling" or for political commentary on raising the debt ceiling. I asked you, "why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling ".
I'm beginning to think you don't know.
BTW, Turning to the government for estimates about the longevity and soundness of SS, is like ... well ... it's like asking Barney Frank about Fannie and Freddie in 2008.
Dear ecgberht,
Please look back through these voluminous messages to find the one where I explained how the federal debt/budgeting work (unlike the states, feds don't separate capital/operating and cash vs. accrual budgeting) and also walked through how instead of paying off the debt, Bush had the government borrow money from the wealthy to pay for a tax cut back the wealthy, averting a potential loss of the Treasury bond market to a zero debt situation.
Does that ring a bell?
And I think people know that Social Security is a sacred trust which why it is still considered the "third rail" of politics, despite scare tactics like claiming insolvency. And part of the popularity of SocSec is because of the realization that 401K s can disappear a la Enron or have half their value wiped out overnight in a downturn. Or unlike the security of SocSec, the many pension plans that are underfunded or threatened during bankruptcies, mergers, etc. (e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR200901...
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/10/business/shriveling-of-pensions-after-... )
ecg - "I'm beginning to think you don't know."
Really, really? You are like the argument man in a Monty Python sketch who just says the opposite to keep the argument going. http://www.montypython.net/scripts/argument.php
Which is too bad since the conversation couldn't get interesting since we cannot agree on the facts (I took care to support mine with citations and yours were often in opposition to reliable and source docs).
As to the housing bubble and Barney Frank's floor comment that seems to be popular on the YouTube, indeed, there was a housing bubble which at the time I had tried to explain to friends that housing prices could go down.
Oh well, it seems like you and Barney Frank have something in common.
Daniel
Daniel wrote:
"Please look back through these voluminous messages "
Sorry, I have neither the time nor the stomach for that.
This is a simple question Daniel. I don't need "voluminous messages". I can answer it in less than ten words. Let's see if you can.
"Why was it necessary to raise the debt ceiling "?
I think you mean to ask why is the government running a deficit? Raising the debt ceiling is just allowing the govt to issue debt to raise more money. Or are you asking why there has been so much debt accumulated? Since from your previous weeks responses have been forgotten, and you didn’t seem to understand then either I will try again - as part of your re-statist sensibility.
Clinton was able to get to surplus spending mainly because of the great economy and beating back the Republicans, fooling them into accepting fiscal prudence. Then Bush became president and was able to immediately short circuit the surpluses by enacting huge tax cuts favoring the wealthy. At the time he claimed that paying back the debt too quickly was too expensive. Others in the investment arena also pointed out the dangers for investors (aka wealthy) if the debt was zeroed out, ergo no Treasury bonds.
Now the wealthy could continue lending money to the government, which became needed thanks Bush tax cuts helping to create deficit spending.
Yes, there were also some wars that the Bush admin insisted on borrowing from the wealthy instead of taxing them. war profiteers.
Sure, the government also borrowed from other countries too. It seems when there is an imbalance in trade, foreigners prefer the IOUs from the US govt than from individuals and corporations. Thanks again to the Bush admin for helping to gut the infrastructure.
And today the "reformed" Republicans from their splurge, decide that average people need to stop being coddled with their SocSec, Medicare and other life saving services to pay down the debt. But those "savings" are intended to allow for even more tax cuts for the wealthy while keeping the government in hock to the wealthy holding the govt debt.
I would ban the wealthy from investing in any government debt. By ending this as a profit center and hedge, Republicans wont have as much incentive to run up the debt.
How 'bout them apples.
Daniel