The Debt Ceiling Standoff
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-01-15/debt-ceiling-standoff
President Barack Obama says he won't negotiate with congressional Republicans on raising the federal debt limit. A panel joins guest host Steve Roberts to discuss the implications of the standoff for tax and spending negotiations in Washington and America's credit rating.
Guests
Norman Ornstein
resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks."
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor for The Economist and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
Annie Lowrey
economic policy reporter for The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I believe I can speak for a lot of Americans who, over the years, lost pensions. In a 45 year career, I lost three.
What is really galling is having to listen to Congress state that Americans need to make sacrifices. But what sacrifices is Congress prepared to make? I've heard nothing about them reducing their VERY generous fringe benefits and pay packages.
Is it any wonder that America is in a state of decline? This system of privilege is one of many things that will eventually cause us to go the way of all the empires of the past.
They need to "put THEIR money where their mouths are".
The very first thing that should NOT be paid are pay and benefits for elected officials and retirement payments to former elected officials.
If this were the law of the land there would never be an issue about raising the debt ceiling - IF the ones supposed to be doing the work for us were doing the work for us - what we elected them to do - and it was their paychecks on the table first they would get the job done really fast.
That is why we-the-people do not trust our government - they pay themselves first, no matter what, and to hell with we who elected them to represent us.
Amen! My sentiments exactly.
It must be noted that the previous downgrade of credit of the U.S. was due to not reaching a debt deal, NOT due to a debt limit standoff.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure and what we're seeing is a government that has learned to rule by Fear.
Unfunded, illegal wars..... too big to fail..... government and corporate bed fellows..... phony drug wars.....fake terrorism legislation.....loss of personal freedoms.....
The question now is when will we reach the critical mass of protest when the average citizen demand a return to a government by the people and for the people!
If the president stops payments with shutdown then he should stop congress payments for staff and legislators first since they are not doing their job. poor work performance . thank you . Chris Carey
Read Norman Ornstein's book folks...get educated. This is not about the debt, the debt limit, etc. but about power full stop. The debt limit, no new taxes, senate holds, etc. are just tools being used by the minority party to make the majority party look bad. In other words a power grab. We need to affect change on both sides of the aisle so that we see a return of senators and congressman that seek to compromise, not stand firm on nonsensical idealogical platforms that the majority of americans could care less about.
Duly noted. However, it is apparent to many that the culture of spending in Congress has a long legacy, even when so-called problem-solvers were in office (i.e., 'return of senators and congressman that seek to compromise'). This culture of spending other people's money is a disease that will eat away at our economic power unless it is curbed.
It`s hard for me to understand this T-Party silliness. I grew up having a place called Fort Knox.. A military base protecting our vaults of gold. WHERE DID THE GOLD GO ? WHO EMPTIED THE VAULT?
It is about power and control. If it weren't, the knuckleheads on Capital Hill would have noticed that when the Biden/McConnell deal was made to avoid the fiscal cliff, the stock market shot up more than 300 points. It wafted down once the market got its arms and ears around the debt ceiling, sequestration and the gunslinger lingo from the Republicans. If Congress, working in a true bi-partisan way that put the country at the center of the discussion, crafted a fair and balanced plan that told the markets, companies, employers and consumers that the adults had prevailed and there was a plan, the market would advance. Surely everyone would get a haircut, but an improved economy resulting from stable, predictable federal tax and spend policies would provide new opportunities, an increase in personal wealth and sufficient economic growth to drive an increase in tax revenue.
But alas, these guys, particularly the leather-necked tea party crowd, is vindictive and myopic.
It is about power and control. If it weren't, the knuckleheads on Capital Hill would have noticed that when the Biden/McConnell deal was made to avoid the fiscal cliff, the stock market shot up more than 300 points. It wafted down once the market got its arms and ears around the debt ceiling, sequestration and the gunslinger lingo from the Republicans. If Congress, working in a true bi-partisan way that put the country at the center of the discussion, crafted a fair and balanced plan that told the markets, companies, employers and consumers that the adults had prevailed and there was a plan, the market would advance. Surely everyone would get a haircut, but an improved economy resulting from stable, predictable federal tax and spend policies would provide new opportunities, an increase in personal wealth and sufficient economic growth to drive an increase in tax revenue.
But alas, these guys, particularly the leather-necked tea party crowd, is vindictive and myopic.
OK, here's what I want to know. If the President was behind the stimulus, PPACA, the Afghan surge, tax cuts made permanent, cash for clunkers, to the tune of 6T more debt, why does he now get to say, "CONGRESS must be responsible and pay ITS bills?!"
Clifford, I'm no expert on the "Tea Party," and I could be wrong about this, but it's my understanding that the Tea Party folks are as close as you can get to a group that wants to get back on a gold standard. Of course, just like Republicans and Democrats, the Tea Party is not hegemonic.
The "vault" is not empty. But we are not on a gold standard. And even if we were, we could still be in as much debt as we are now, and we could still suffer from financial crises and other forms of mismanagement. A gold standard is not a cure for everything that ails us. It would be great if it were that simple!
By the way, Fort Knox is not the largest gold depository in the US. But if it makes you feel better, Fort Knox is still there and it still has lots of gold. We can only hope that the "Fascists" haven't stolen all that gold and put Fool's Gold in its place. Oh dear, I hope I haven't spawned another conspiracy theory! :-)
Samcot wrote:
"But if it makes you feel better, Fort Knox is still there and it still has lots of gold."
As far as you know.
Between the two big gold depositories in KY and NY we have about 600B, theoretically - a drop in the bucket compared to M1 and M2, currently about 2T and 10T, respectively.
We have what is called a "fiat" currency - you could look that up. We have, if memory serves, Nixon to thank for that. In essence with a fiat currency, it is worth exactly what the government says it is worth - because they say that's what its worth. (There's a flaw in that thinking, but never mind that for now). So we could have zero gold and, in terms of monetary value, it wouldn't matter one whit.
A fiat currency makes it much easier to create money out of ether, which we have been doing in spades since Bernanke took the helm. That is our biggest problem but people don't even know it yet.
Ecgberht, Ecgberht1, Ecgberht2, and all of your other aliases: I know you miss me, but I've already told you that I will not discuss anything with someone who advocates stockpiling firearms for an armed insurrection ("Second Amendment remedies") against the US government. Nor am I interested in any opinion from someone who believes in a "Progressive/Fascist conspiracy."
You already know my opinion of you, no need to "look it up." Yes, there are certainly some flaws in someone's thinking. Please be a good sport and pass the time with people who want to associate with you. If you believe in "freedom," I'd like to be free of you, okay? Can you handle that, or are you going to invoke your First Amendment rights as a pretext to communicate with someone who doesn't want to communicate with you?
"...I've already told you that I will not discuss anything with someone who advocates stockpiling firearms for an armed insurrection ("Second Amendment remedies") against the US government."
That is, of course, false. As is much of what you post, and I've already embarrassed you on that score once already.
"I'd like to be free of you, okay?"
I'm sure you would. But that's not how a mb works. You post what you want to post. But when you post crap, I and others, will refute it. Can you handle that?
I figured you were the kind of freedom-loving guy who doesn't respect the wishes of other people, and so I will just have to ignore you while you rattle on. I feel better for asking, though. And of course that's "not how MBs work." But then, I didn't ask to be free of the MB, did I?
And yes, I must be crazy. You've never said anything about a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy or armed resistance to a tyrannical government as a Right conferred by the Second Amendment. Neither have you said anything about the DR show censoring conservative viewpoints. You're always civil, you never resort to personal insults. I'm confusing you with another Ecgberht, your evil twin from another dimension. So why do YOU want to talk to a crazy person? You think that all of your "constructive" criticism can straighten me out? :-)
Anyway, let's see, what was the topic? Oh yes, the debt ceiling. I don't know what fiat currency is and I was going to look that up. It's a car, isn't it? When did we change from a gold standard to a car standard? What will I do if I don't have Ecgberht to tell me what to look up?
Good luck to you. And for real, good-bye.
"I don't know what fiat currency is and I was going to look that up. "
There's no shame in ignorance.
The only shame is droning on about that of which one is ignorant.
"You're always civil, you never resort to personal insults. "
Correct. If you think otherwise, point to the post. I have gotten angry with posters like you who lie about what other people say, but I still remain civil. When people like you lie consistently (as I'm about to demonstrate), it does get frustrating.
"You've never said anything about a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy"
Correct. You used the term. I NEVER HAVE. Place "progressive fascist" in the Search Box for DRshow mb and click Go!. The only one talking about a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy is you. What I actually said was,
"A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal. It starts with the fringe folks like Pancake and Clifford and ends with your local Congress person." And I stand by that statement.
You added "Progressive" - falsely I might add.
"armed resistance to a tyrannical government as a Right conferred by the Second Amendment. "
Yes, I have written on that subject. Do you not see how that is different from "someone who advocates stockpiling firearms for an armed insurrection ("Second Amendment remedies") against the US government". There is a difference between "resistence" and "insurrection". Are you unable to grasp that simple point? And I have NEVER used the term "Second Amendment remedies".
You are fundamentally dishonest, samcot, and your posts speak for themselves.
You can run away, but you cannot hide. When you misrepresent what other people post - particularly me, I will continue to call you out.
Your biggest problem is, you are incapable of honest debate and backing up your views. And you know it.
Well, okay, if you insist:
Regarding the Progressive/Fascist conspiracy and armed resistance to a tyrannical government as a Right conferred by the Second Amendment, here are some quotes, Part 1:
This movement to disarm the American public and leave it defenseless against its government has now begun. We need to sit down and have a quiet, calm reflection on the Second Amendment.
Disarming the American public is not going to accomplish that.
That was absolutely the intent of Amendment 2. You think individuals could not defend themselves against an all-out assault by an autocratic government? You've got another think coming. There are roughly 1.5M troops. Even with their weaponry they are facing odds of 150 to 1. Not good. Need a visual? Try Lemuel Gulliver. And, the fact that our military is strong is even MORE reason not to disarm the citizens.
A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal. It starts with the fringe folks like Pancake and Clifford and ends with your local Congress person.
Because it's about control. Whether it's guns, "climate change", or how people are allowed to spend their own money, it's always about control with the left.
Fine - as long as the military turns in its guns and goes back to using muskets as well. You have no clue about Amendment #2.
Bad s- happens. It always has, and it always will, whether there are guns in the hands of the public or not.
It is not difficult to infer from from what they wrote. . . citizens had the right to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government.
We're not doing that good of a job at those just now. (“those” referring to participatory democracy, hence, the need for firearms to do a “better job.”)
Ultimately, for a free people, the defense of LAST RESORT, the protection of LAST RESORT against tyranny lies with an armed citizenry. And we should keep it that way.
Progressive/Fascist conspiracy, etc., more quotes from Ecgberht, Part 2:
When I asked you to explain your statement, “A fascist government and a defenseless populace is the longer-term goal," you responded, “a little paranoia is good for the soul.”
Your comment about any possible (minor) gun legislation following the Sandy Hook massacre: “Nothing happens all at once. Fascism and a defenseless populace. It's a step by step process, you see.”
What part of that exactly, don't you understand? What exactly is it that you want me to "explain adequately"? That, by definition, has to be the end-game for progressives.
What I am is an "extreme second amendment" person.
Progressives have made it that much more difficult, and might, someday, bring it to an end. THAT's what motivates Conservatives.
I do think, however, that a fascist government with a defenseless populace is a long-term goal of progressvies and it will happen in baby steps.
I might have stood with the rebels (against George Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion)
Why don't you ask the Branch Davidians about that? They held off the Feds for 51 days! Shock and awe, indeed.
On the question of who gets to decide when to take up arms against the government, you said, “That would be up to the rebels, now wouldn't it?”
An armed citizen vs. an unarmed citizen changes the context of the relationship between a citizen and his government.
Take away all the guns and Adam Lanza comes with a Molotov cocktail or something else.
I don't think there was one thing in there that would have prevented what happened last Friday.
“The subject of the role of government in digital infrastructure is germane to the topic.” (The “topic” of a Progressive/Fascist takeover)
Regarding the DR show and the censoring of viewpoints, quotes from Ecgberht:
Anyone who has listened to Diane Rehm for any length of time knows she mines topical outrage for its 24-hour shock value then moves on to the next opportunity.
I agree with you on the whole, kathleen (in reference to the DR show “bias” against female callers)
Diane and Obama are just stroking liberals' necks and giving them a pearl necklace so they'll feel loved. It won't ever come to anything, and everyone knows it.
An one who argues that Diane and NPR are "middle of the road" and/or "fair" should be listening to this show. The most one-sided program I've ever heard. Look at the guest list and listen to the comments. It's a disgrace to journalism.
The board continues to censor the posts of certain posters by throwing them into the "moderation" queue.
Regarding civility and insults, Part 1:
You're a liar.
Flagged as offensive. (in response to someone calling you an empty-headed blabbermouth. Pot calling the kettle black)
Still can't make a point, can you?
Seeing that you think you are more clever than the Founders, I'm sure you will have an even more clever reply.
I wouldn't be bringing up the "ignorance" word.
Facts are a wonderful thing. You should try some.
A lot of lovely rhetoric - no facts.
Since you are either slothful, think the ideas of posters here yesterday are worthless, don't know how to use simple search features, even though I gave you simple step by step instructions to narrow the list . . .
I thought you'd do better in this response.
You didn't like to read growing up, did you?
The problem is, you're too lazy.
As I see phrases like, "I'll suggest that", and "It seems that", I know I'm dealing with pure rhetoric and nothing factual.
When you learn how to debate, come back and give it another shot, 'k?
You still haven't learned your lesson have you?
Shut your pie hole.
Put up or shut up.
So far, every round has been strawmen, an automatic "lose," and I'm going to bet, you don't even know it!
I think it's unlikely that your education of our founders and our early history extends much beyond Wikipedia.
You would have favored East India Co. over the Sons of Liberty.
Civility and insults, more quotes from Ecgberht, Part 2:
I look forward to schooling you once again.
The problem is, if you were forced to quote me, it would make the task of making your little points and asking your little questions much too difficult for you.
What Wikipedia has to do with the Whiskey Rebellion is, that seems to be the depth of your understanding of this incident in American history.
As you seem to be less than strong on reading comprehension.
You have a hell of a lot more questions than answers.
A little thing called the Civil War. Perhaps you've heard of it?
I'm sure your low-information response will be something like . . .
We'll just put that in the dust bin with all your other scintillating questions.
I don't mean any disrespect, but this is the kind of shallow thinking that springs up around incidents like this.
There's very little thought or practicality that goes into these ideas.
Look up the g.d. definition of strawman and STOP USING IT!
Fascist progressives like you who don't care what the Founders intended.
You apparently don't know what fascism is.
Did they even bother to mention that in your civics class? Did you have a civics class?
You are young, and apparently not well educated.
Flagged as offensive. (This is my favorite. This is what you wrote in response to someone calling you an empty-headed blabbermouth, which is well shy of the insults you fling about. You can dish it out, but man you can’t take it!)
AND FINALLY:
You NEVER quote me. (If I didn’t quote you as much as you would have liked, it was only because I was being merciful)
AND your lack of humor is abundantly clear from a reading of these quotes. Mind you, this is just a sample of what you've posted over a short period of time. Look in the mirror, Ecgberht. You do not engage in constructive discussion. The vast majority of your posts are argumentative and downright aggressive.
Take care.
.
Thank you for immortalizing my body of work! I really appreciate it! Well, except the ones you include that aren't mine! I'm guessing this is supposed to somehow prove that you have been honest in debate? That's a fail. A bunch of quotes, taken out of context don't prove anything. But you prove two points categorically:
First:
"You've never said anything about a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy"
Correct. You used the term. I NEVER HAVE - and all your quotes support that statement. Place "progressive fascist" in the Search Box for DRshow mb and click Go!. The only one talking about a Progressive/Fascist conspiracy is you. In fact, I don't think I've ever used the word "conspiracy" in an accusatory way. The word is greatly overused.
All the quotes wrt to gun control that you have FINALLY provided demonstrate (prior to this, you have NEVER quoted me, not just "as much as you would like"), is that I support and can show, why the second amendment protects the citizenry against the state, and an attempt to INFRINGE on that right violates the Constitution. It says what it says. Do I think gun control advocates have a long-term goal of disarming the population? Yes, I do. Is that the same as a "Progressive/Fascist Conspiracy?" No, it is not. And I continue to stand behind every statement I made.
Second:
Wrt civility and insults, you don't grasp the difference between spirited debate, sarcasm, and insult. And again, many of your quotes are completely out of context. Pointing out ignorance, for example, is not an insult, it's demonstrable, and different than consistently saying someone has dementia, which is not demonstrable (at least on a mb), and is simply ad hominem. Get it?
Do I succumb to frustration at times? Maybe. But I'll see your "Shut your pie hole" and "put up or shut up" and raise you one "What's it gonna be, tough guy?"
Now, let's examine, by way of demonstration, the quotes you take out of context:
*****************************
"Dianne Bauman wrote:
Diane, when we have popular radio hosts, namingly Glenn Beck, who proclaim "buy land and fill them with guns and lots of ammunition, we have a black man in the white house"....this sickens me. We need to get rid of these mentally ill celebrities that promote hatred. Only in America are we allowed to act this out. What an abomination!!"
Dianne, you're a liar.
If you can provide a reference for that "quote" from Glenn Beck, then bring it. You can't.
(PS: We never heard from "Diane" again).
******************************
"It's plain to see that, in fact, you don't agree with all of the Founders. " (samcot)
Show me where I said that I did or shut your pie hole, because [your] misrepresentation and strawmen are beginning to wear on my nerves. I said that the founders and I are of one accord with the document they produced that is the final law of our land. If you think I said otherwise, put up or shut up. (samcot never did)
******************************
So, you see, calling out liars and blowhards doesn't really qualify as "uncivil" or "insult". And just because someone slaughters you in debate (which is all your samples really show) does not make their posts "uncivil" or "insult".
"You NEVER quote me. "
In the context of debate, I don’t think you ever have – even once. As I said, it's the hallmark of the Strawman argument. That's why it's important to point out that I never talked about a "Progressive/Fascist conspiracy" and that those are YOUR WORDS, not mine. Instead of quoting the person you are debating, you reform his comments to suit your argument ... like inventing a "Progressive/Fascist conspiracy". You are the best at it, samcot. Like I said, "Your biggest problem is, you are incapable of honest debate and backing up your views. And you know it". And your latest posts, once again, prove it.
But I mean that in a good way. :-)
Oh ... and one more thing ... just because I don't crack jokes about serious subjects, doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. That would be an example of "non sequitur" (literally, "does not follow"). You can look that one up too, samcot.
Please note that the listening button isn't available for this specific show. Could you please add the complete broadcast. Thank you, Alex
"climatewiz1 wrote:
@ Monte Haun:
YOU are the one who quoted Al Gore's statement... What part of his statement do YOU not understand?
"Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS on how dangerous (global warming) is..."
An "over-representation of FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS"... really Monte???
Translation=A BIG FAT LIE told intentionally by Al Gore and sucked up by gullible little you....
Pal - If you can't recognize his statement above as a euphamistic 10 dollar sentence meant to justify telling a two bit lie (prevarication) about global warming, then this is a real leading indicator that you truly have lost your grasp on reality.... and truth has no more place in your vocabulary.
February 1, 2013 - 1:04 am"
You infantile Used Car Salesmen (the ecgberht Gang) are a pathetic lot. You shoot off your poorly informed mouths before, during and after the Broadcast, then get your a_ses kicked all afternoon then wait till most of the other Commentators have given up in order to present your delusional, completely irrelevant, deceitful, distracting and clumsy attempts to support your originally asinine assertions of "facts".
(Cont)
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
When Al Gore explains his theories on Global Warming, for example, he is representing his theories on the dangers of Global Warming by way of FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS.
If he uses more FACTUAL PRESENTATIONS (Examples) than is necessary to make his case, he is said to have overrepresented his case.
I have known people who understand the structures, expression, the literal, the implied, its uses, nuance and subtilties, in a word, all that is known about language. I have also known functionally illiterate people, near illiterate people, even totally illiterate people.
I do not recall a single one of those persons whose command of our beautiful language was as ill formed, corrupt and barren as is the ecgberht gang's. Nor do I recall a single one of those persons unable to parse out Gore's simple statement.
Your only competence is in lying and you aren't even good at that, any Schoolboy or the clumsiest two-bit Grifter does it better.
I don't feel that Gore's statement is a euphemistic "euphamistic 10 dollar sentence" nor did he intend using the statement as a euphemistic "euphamistic 10 dollar sentence" to justify telling a two bit lie (prevarication)"...
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com