Seeking Alpha

No, the debt ceiling brouhaha does not make the U.S. a "laughingstock" - it's "exactly what...

No, the debt ceiling brouhaha does not make the U.S. a "laughingstock" - it's "exactly what America needs" to face the hard choices it must make, Evan Newmark writes. "Ask yourself... Would I rather have my politicians fighting each other in Washington over the debt ceiling today, or my neighbors fighting each other in the streets when the nation goes bankrupt five years from now?"
Comments (97)
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Yep.

     

    But don't worry. The smart people in WDC only put a small slice of a cut in 'the debate' about the size of a sliver in an elephants hide. Nothing to see here.

     

    We are still on schedule for 1000 Watts riots I suppose sometime in the future, because Harry Reid only said we could have $1.7 trillion in cuts over 10 years, but that's only projected based on Afghanistan drawdowns. He's a real bright guy and knows what he's doing. It'll all be okay. I'll just close my eyes and pretend not to see these derelicts on TV anymore.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Dear Mr. Newmark.

     

    Please advise how a country that is autonomous and capable of printing its own (issuing its own) currency is capable of going bankrupt. I can see how they may precipitate hyper inflation by issuing too much currency given conditions, but in a deflationary environment like we are currently in, I hardly view that as an impending threat.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Playing the Ponzi
    , contributor
    Comments (144) | Send Message
     
    I agree that the U.S. is incapable of bankruptcy, except by our own choice. That said, we'll get those same riots from hyper-inflation down the line. In fact, I suspect they'll be worse, because austerity is something that is still under "control" of government. Hyper-inflation would be chaos, and there would be nothing the government could do to stop it.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    If there's riots in the street, they'll be chasing teabaggers and THE NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.
    28 Jul 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Ponzi....you are right. Austerity is under control of the government. They can tax us into austerity. If taxes are sufficiently high, they economy will shut down and you can rest assured there will be people "in the streets" just like in Greece.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:10 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Monngie....I'll be sure not to be waving my "Don't Tread on Me" flag.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Being a child of the 60's it would be kinds nice to see people get off they're fat asses and protest. I love nostalgia.
    31 Jul 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    "Ask yourself... Would I rather have my politicians fighting each other in Washington over the debt ceiling today, or my neighbors fighting each other in the streets when the nation goes bankrupt five years from now?"
    The problem is we will likely see both. These are not mutually exclusive results.
    28 Jul 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Stone Fox Capital
    , contributor
    Comments (5945) | Send Message
     
    We're the laughingstock b/c we are having a debate. The cuts should've been made a long time ago. Not to mention that the countries that are having are mostly protected by our military expenses.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • Bouchart
    , contributor
    Comments (763) | Send Message
     
    The U.S. moves slowly on these things. At least we're talking about it...
    28 Jul 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    It's all Obama's fault!!
    28 Jul 2011, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Bear Bait
    , contributor
    Comments (665) | Send Message
     
    It's the intransigent hard headed teabaggers fault.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    TrueConservative,

     

    Are you sitting in the basement in RNC Headquarters where all the bu11S#!+ emails are dreamed up? In my minds eye I can see you sitting in the dark, staring at a computer screen with bloodshot eyes, drooling on a bib that says "NO" on it with an American Flag in the background and Joe the Plummer in the lower right hand corner. You guys really like NO, and that's why we're having to listen to this bu11S#!+
    28 Jul 2011, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • If U Say So
    , contributor
    Comments (348) | Send Message
     
    Monngie:

     

    I agree with your characterization of Trueconsevative.
    But I also know his attempt at sarcasm is a failure.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Well, if it's sarcasm, TrueConservative needs to quit twisting my brain.
    31 Jul 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Monngie
    Well, if it's sarcasm, TrueConservative needs to quit twisting my brain.
    ======================...
    If you don't understand who TrueConservative is and what points he is making here, twisting of your brains can be considered as needed exercise for you
    31 Jul 2011, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    There are no cuts in any plan being considered today. Not Republican, not Democrat. Its all a scam to get you nice folks talking about the wrong things so the country can continue to looted.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:00 PM Reply Like
  • mdmrjsds
    , contributor
    Comments (502) | Send Message
     
    No cuts? That's insane. Two no-brainers are:

     

    Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. Housing is moribund, and likely will be for years. It is having no effect, so it is the perfect time to cut it.

     

    Eliminate the health care subsidy to corporations. There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize health care for employees of major corporations. Well, actually, the federal government is borrowing the money to subsidize their health care. And everyone says corporations are holding record amounts of cash. Again, a perfect time to get rid of it.

     

    Just these two items would cut the deficit by 180 to 200 billion.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • IgnisFatuus
    , contributor
    Comments (2115) | Send Message
     
    I believe Neil549 is correct. The "cuts" being comtemplated are only reductions of what future spending is scheduled to be. Next years budget will be larger than this years and each following year larger still. This whole fight is nothing but a sham.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Greece is the Word.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • If U Say So
    , contributor
    Comments (348) | Send Message
     
    Let's not lower Greece.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:47 AM Reply Like
  • tunaman4u2
    , contributor
    Comments (2784) | Send Message
     
    I'd rather have government getting something done, something it rarely does well
    28 Jul 2011, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Tuna,

     

    Spending & Borrowing is something they certainly do well.

     

    "Debate" is only how much.

     

    No matter how much, rest assured they will get "Something Done"
    28 Jul 2011, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • tunaman4u2
    , contributor
    Comments (2784) | Send Message
     
    "Something done well" is unlikely

     

    Also the assumption that the government can save the day & prevent neighbors fighting in the streets is quite laughable.

     

    Austerity = Great depression, QE = hyperinflation to Great depression

     

    Pick your poison the mirage of the US money for nothing & entitlement is about to break
    28 Jul 2011, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • rrose39
    , contributor
    Comments (682) | Send Message
     
    "...Would I rather have...my neighbors fighting each other in the streets when the nation goes bankrupt five years from now?"

     

    That's never going to happen. As Dick Cheney once said, "deficits don't matter".

     

    Cheney was wrong about a lot of things, but on this he was right.

     

    In five years we'll raise the debt limit again and everybody's happy.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    After all the hyperbole and hysteria, and considering the state of affairs, I ask this "If the United States was a company would you invest?".
    28 Jul 2011, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    After the management change. We'll see how smart the shareholders are this time around.

     

    For now, I'm skeptical.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Right! Who would invest in a company that takes on unsustainable debt and reduces revenues all while being run by a Democrat???

     

    What people want to invest in is a company that takes on unsustainable debt and reduces revenues all while being run by a Republican!!!
    28 Jul 2011, 09:41 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Or worse, a company that had unsustainable debt followed up by a CEO who piled on 4x as much than the guy before.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    I should have posed the question more thoughtfully:

     

    The U. S. as a corporation, would you invest considering the following;

     

    A boardroom distracted by in-fighting, distrust and dislike for one another.
    Questionable top leadership in key positions.
    Oppressive retirement obligations.
    Lower cost competitors.
    Core assets outsourced to third parties, without significant oversight capabilities.
    Unyielding corporate structure without sufficient incentives to adapt to changing business conditions and weighted down by Byzantine labor rules.
    Insufficient critical resources with no clear plan for a path forward.
    Last, but most certainly not least, that ugly balance sheet.

     

    I can appreciate the dissatisfaction with the current CEO, but there is rumor that he will be retiring soon, or be forced out by the voting shareholders. That be the case, can the the voting shareholders be trusted to make a solid choice for his replacement, can they be expected to read the prospectus, or will they allow their votes to be swayed by outsiders, emotion and entrenched prejudices?

     

    It's a pretty good brand, with leading market share and world dominance in many key metrics, but maintaining that dominance can bleed the balance sheet red. Can it be expected to maintain it's lead in the race considering all of the challenges it faces, or will it fall behind as so many others have before it?
    29 Jul 2011, 02:19 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    How about we shareholders vote out the management team the CEO relies on to make good financial decisions. Or for that matter any decisions at all except for NO. You know, the ones that refuse to pay the companies debts and subsequently caused the companies credit rating to be downgraded. Well maybe not yet, but, they won't give up until they successfully get us downgraded.

     

    Specifically, the House Republicans.
    31 Jul 2011, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    IMHO
    Whatever current debate outcome is.
    It is good debate.
    Because it put the problem into spot light
    "Process started going" used to say M. Gorbachev
    Eventually he was ousted by process he has created.
    Nevertheless country changed direction

     

    Tea Party I wish you well
    28 Jul 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • rrose39
    , contributor
    Comments (682) | Send Message
     
    The Tea Party is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
    28 Jul 2011, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    Bang on. Intervention for the drunk now, or six feet under five years from now.

     

    But the solution does not have to purist or all-at-once. Easing the economy off the stimulus drug will take a few years; entitlement reform can nonetheless start now. Tax revenue can be raised without raising marginal rates, through basic reform.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • DavyJ
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    As Winston Churchill said: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else."
    28 Jul 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Well, now we have thoroughly panicked the world about or debt levels, and the inability of our governmental system to do anything about it. Congress doesn't have the guts to actually tackle the problem. Simpson Bowles was a bipartisan solution. Everyone took a hit. Nobody liked it. Sounds better all the time. Unfortunately all Congress can do is take small, incremental steps further into the %$@t. For investors, the problem is that this isn't going away now. Regardless of a debt limit increase. The US will get downgraded, probably next week. Holders of our debt have good reason not to trust us anymore. It'd becoming a Greek tragedy, proceeding inexorably to a bad end.
    28 Jul 2011, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    The US is not a laughingstock because it's Congress chooses to tackle difficult issues; quite the contrary. Foreigners like myself wonder, however, at the delays and artificial complexities exhibited as major issues are brought to the head of the agenda and disposed with (or deferred). The lack of connection between what is happening at the legislative level and what issues are to the fore at street level is also worrying.

     

    Too often it appears that American political debate is dominated by sentiments (likes, dislikes, nostalgia, worries and wishes) to the exclusion of searching discussion about what needs to be done and how best to achieve those things that are truly necessary.
    28 Jul 2011, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Adamson,

     

    And, arithmetic has nothing to do with it?

     

    Nevermind that sustainability thing. Nothing to see here, just move along now.
    28 Jul 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • warrenrial
    , contributor
    Comments (558) | Send Message
     
    Obama has sure made a mess of this country.
    28 Jul 2011, 10:06 PM Reply Like
  • Glocks-n-Gold
    , contributor
    Comments (189) | Send Message
     
    I believe that was his intent all along. If not, then he's an even bigger phuck-up then I've given him credit for!
    28 Jul 2011, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • rrose39
    , contributor
    Comments (682) | Send Message
     
    it's amazing and ridiculous to me how anyone with half a brain that lived through the George W. Bush era can say that it was Obama that made a mess of this country.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Pssst. Hey rose. Obama's made a mess of this country.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    rrose39
    it's amazing and ridiculous to me how anyone with half a brain ....
    ======================...
    it does not need to be either Bush or Obama
    Just think about people of full size brain
    29 Jul 2011, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Glocks, "I believe that was his intent all along. If not, then he's an even bigger phuck-up then I've given him credit for!"

     

    I don't agree he had intent, Obama was doing what his indoctrination made him think he should do. I believe he really had no idea and, still today, does not have any idea the damage he is doing. The liberal indoctrination is that if a plan fails its because not enough money was spent, not that it was a bad plan. You see, there are no bad liberal plans. Even though they fail time after time.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • chicagotiger
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    what exactly are they fighting over? it appears the worst problem is the Dems have no plan, and the GOP has party infighting... the Baby Boomers are living up to the cowards they are and have been since protesting Vietnam. a baby boomer president and a baby boomer speaker of the house.... they have no courage. this GOP isn't anything close to the party of Ronald Reagan. People forget that Reagan flipped his middle finger to Big Business in '86 and wiped out dozens of tax loopholes and deductions, gave the IRS a big boost in funding. This GOP doesn't know what it wants other than to cut school lunches for poor kids and get rid of the FAA. The fact is everyone making over $100,000 a year should not be allowed any tax deductions. Make it a flat tax. Bring down marginal rates to two tiers like in '86 -- have 25% the top bracket, but 25% means 25% ... raise the age on social security and medicare to 70 over the next 30 years and a lot of us Generation X'ers and Y'ers can live with that. The problem is Baby Boomers are idiots, selfish, greedy and cowards. They are prepared to watch their children and their grandchild starve to death all on a principal of sucking every living resource for themselves that the face of the earth has left.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:28 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Your parents gotta loveeeeee you!!!
    31 Jul 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Ananthan Thangavel
    , contributor
    Comments (828) | Send Message
     
    This is a ridiculous assertion. The US has been racking up debt at a breakneck pace for years and we have not had a decline in quality of living compared to the rest of the world. In fact, for us to even reach Japan's level of debt, we would have to more than double our current debt. To say that we'll be fighting each other in the streets if not for this retarded austerity package is just the same political bs that has been coming out of Washington for years.
    28 Jul 2011, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Ananthan....in fact we've been happily consuming the production of Japan and China for a long time. We've been happily paying them dollars....which by and large, they have chosen to "invest" and not spend. They are kind of boxed in though, because as soon as they want to cash those dollars in and spend them....I suspect their currencies will rise - making their goods more expensive.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • If U Say So
    , contributor
    Comments (348) | Send Message
     
    We are well on our way to doubling our debt in short order. The problem with our government is they aren't talking about an austerity package. They aren't proposing cuts to the current budget, nor the budget after that, or the one after that. They're proposing changes that are far in the future. Our annual budget deficit isn't shrinking and they aren' t even proposing it should shrink. Next year's budget will be even bigger than this year which was a record budget and budget deficit. Each year will be bigger than the year prior. At the rate we're going, if Obama is reelected we will double our debt before his 8th year in office begins.
    29 Jul 2011, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    All true statements, every word.

     

    I like Rand Paul's Penny Plan, but it will get no play. I like it for the very logic you laid out. Namely that Reid/Boehner's 'cuts' are not cuts. They are minor slow downs in the rate of spending, going from 8% annual federal spending increases to just 7.8%. Big whoop.

     

    The Penny Plan is about starting with a freeze in future spending increases. That alone will arrest most of the problems of the next decade. Then, cutting 1% a year from actual spending. If we were to do this we hit a budget surplus in, I believe the 6th year.

     

    There is no brass in Washington.

     

    We have a leadership vacuum in WDC and its sucking all life into its dark hole.
    29 Jul 2011, 03:25 AM Reply Like
  • IgnisFatuus
    , contributor
    Comments (2115) | Send Message
     
    Well stated Wyatt.
    29 Jul 2011, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Not a bad idea!

     

    And it illustrates that all this crisis talk is just BS. This plan is by no means audacious or austere and yet it gets us to where we need to get in a relatively short period of time.

     

    Doing something like this should not require brass, courage, or for that matter any gonads at all. Indeed, if even a little austerity was injected into the plan like closing some loopholes or a very small raise in taxes and we would be in great shape in a fairly short period of time.

     

    The only disagreement I have is the fact that you can't lead a bunch of freakin' idiots that refuse to be lead.

     

    Geez, I'm even kinda sympathetic to John Boner and I thought hell would freeze over before that would happen. If only his predicament didn't make me chuckle and smirk so much.
    29 Jul 2011, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Ananthan Thangavel
    , contributor
    Comments (828) | Send Message
     
    You want to cut the deficit to 0?!?! Hope you live somewhere else besides the US because we're definitely going into a period worse than the Great Depression if that happens.
    29 Jul 2011, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, so they say indoctrinated one.
    29 Jul 2011, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3629) | Send Message
     
    At the individual family level, we do not deficit spend. We actually have a budget surplus at the end of each month. We're not going through a great (or even not-so-great) depression. We're, for the most part, pretty happy people.
    29 Jul 2011, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • Dick Mellon
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Funny how we were headed to new 52 week highs until the Republicons/Tea Baggers showed up.. Stay stupid America!
    29 Jul 2011, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Agbug
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    Where's the thumbs down when you need it?
    29 Jul 2011, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    His first name works better than criticism.
    29 Jul 2011, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    And your last name as well......OOPS
    31 Jul 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    Dick, "Funny how we were headed to new 52 week highs until the Republicons/Tea Baggers showed up.. Stay stupid America!"

     

    I'd say its funny how Wall Street goes up when it thinks it has access to free money, bail-outs, and big Democratic parties and goes down when everyone starts talking about financial responsibility and obeying the law.
    29 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • Dick Mellon
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    I am sure it is just a coincidence the economy is tanking since the Tea baggers got elected, Lol
    29 Jul 2011, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Dick...I think you don't know much about economics or what makes things run. I don't mind if you have a liberal orientation....but if you can't carry on an intelligent conversation about the specific indictment you throw out....then you don't bring much to the party.
    29 Jul 2011, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Who cares about economics? This site is about bashing Obama! Duh!
    29 Jul 2011, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10275) | Send Message
     
    Oh True Conservative....sorry.... me put my Obama bashing hat on.

     

    The man is simply a pawn. No one could possibly belive that he rose to this position with his background and experience. He was "installed" for the simple reason he could win an election. He is utterly incompetent and incapable of leadership. He is arrogant and his background should be enough to have disqualified him from his present job.....

     

    There....I feel much better now.
    29 Jul 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • rrose39
    , contributor
    Comments (682) | Send Message
     
    actually, they would use the word "uppity" instead of arrogant.
    30 Jul 2011, 12:32 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Anyone would be devoid of leadership trying to lead the Teabaggers away from the cliff. They will not compromise, they will not take yes for and answer. If you give them precisely what they want they will change their mind in a NY minute.

     

    Now, Mich McConnel could lead the Teabaggers, but, he wouldn't be able to lead anyone else. Same with our remarkable Speaker.

     

    "installed"? simply for winning an election? I think that's what they call democracy you dunderhead!!!!!ddd And it's called inauguration.

     

    The CIA must have slipped you something.
    31 Jul 2011, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Dick Mellon Comments
    I am sure it is just a coincidence the economy is tanking since the Tea baggers got elected, Lol
    ======================...
    another bad omens

     

    Rasmussen just crossed Gallup.
    NBC, Fox and ABC at support level
    USA and Pew have took double shoulder shape
    CNN is uncharted territory

     

    -------------------New 52 weeks low in the making----------------...

     

    www.realclearpolitics....
    29 Jul 2011, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    sorry for asking it again

     

    TrueConservative and Dick Mellon are the same thing or they are two different things
    29 Jul 2011, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dick Mellon
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Coddy the zero your argument is? Exactly try making a point instead of rallying people as badly as the republicons are able to do in their own ranks
    29 Jul 2011, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1182) | Send Message
     
    Dick Mellon
    Coddy the zero your argument is? Exactly try making a point instead of rallying people as badly as the republicons [republicans] are able to do in their own ranks
    =====================
    Dickie

     

    Why don't you subscribe to follow me
    Here and there I am making great points.
    SA will be gathering them for you and mail them to your mailbox afterwards.
    As extra benefit, I will teach you how to spell word republican without revealing your true age
    29 Jul 2011, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • rrose39
    , contributor
    Comments (682) | Send Message
     
    It's a matter of historical record that, with nary a whimper, the congress raised the debt limit no less than five times under George W. Bush.

     

    Now what do you suppose is going on this time?
    30 Jul 2011, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    It is also a matter of historical record that Senator Barack Hussein Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling under President George Walker Bush.
    Let's not forget that little tidbit.
    31 Jul 2011, 04:06 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Who gives a crap. He didn't threaten to shut down the government and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States.

     

    But then I suppose if he had he'd be one of your heroes.

     

    NOT. Because no matter what this guy does, even if it's precisely what you want and ask for you'll demonize him.
    31 Jul 2011, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    No, he didn't 'threaten to shut down the government'. Instead, he voted to not authorize the raising of the debt ceiling and actually shut down the government. No threats about it. He did it.
    31 Jul 2011, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    He didn't vote to NOT raise the debt ceiling. HE DIDN'T DO IT.

     

    The President does not caste a vote on this issue. He could have vetoed the bill. But, it didn't get to him.

     

    WRONG.

     

    That's a fact Wyatt and optionsgirl.

     

    But, "you can't handle the facts".
    1 Aug 2011, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Obama voted against raising the debt limit in 2006.

     

    Reid and Obama both sound like Tea Party fanatics in the clips below.

     

    If you must, to be convinced, in their own words...

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    1 Aug 2011, 01:15 AM Reply Like
  • TrueConservative
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Right! Even Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling! What a hypocrite! Just because it was guaranteed to pass anyway back then and just because there was no financial crisis reeking havoc doesn't give him the right to change his tune!

     

    All elected officials must STAY THE COURSE like our Lord and Savior, George W. Bush! New information? What rubbish! We don't need no "information"! New or otherwise! Different circumstances? Bah! Circumstances shmircumstances!

     

    Governing in a democracy is about doing what you believe in, no matter what the cost to everyone else!
    1 Aug 2011, 05:23 AM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    Your comment is nonsensical. "The President does not cast a vote on this issue". Obama was a Senator in 2006, not the President.
    It is a matter of public record that he voted down the debt ceiling.
    Here is a fact for you, Monngle:
    Senator Barack Hussein Obama voted down an increase to the debt ceiling, along with Senator Harry Reid. 48 Senators voted against raising the debt limit in 2006.
    Here is a direct quote:
    March 20, 2006: This was the last stand-alone debt limit vote on which then-Senator Obama voted. He was one of 48 members to vote against the increase, which passed with 52 votes.i He said: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” See article below for footnotes.
    rpc.senate.gov/public/...

     

    You should try to differentiate between facts, opinion, and pure fiction.
    1 Aug 2011, 06:49 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Obama & Reid were tea baggers in '06. Listen to them. Reid sounds just like Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan, word for word.

     

    Not making this up. Its on the youtube link.

     

    Use s'more exclamation points and all caps thyroid case, but the record doesn't lie even if you do.
    1 Aug 2011, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    Are you comparing '06 economy to the '11 economy? Are you saying all things are equal between then and now?
    1 Aug 2011, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm, SA editors removed the youtube link. Nice.

     

    Anyway, so kmi, thanks for making my point even more cogent. The economy in 2011 is much worse post-bubble from a deficit perspective which makes it even more bizarre to oppose spending reductions now than the mere political posturing of Obama & Reid in 2006.
    1 Aug 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt -

     

    Your reductionist argument that
    (a) the deficit has greatly expanded since the 2008 meltdown,
    (b) therefore spending should now be reduced sufficiently to reduce the deficit to some earlier level
    simply avoids addressing
    1. Why increase in the deficit could not have been avoided (leaving aside to point 3 below the question of whether the deficit should have been further enlarged in 2008-10 as a matter of public policy).
    2.What the effect would have been if rigorous efforts had been made post 208 meltdown to prevent any enlargement in annual deficits.
    3. What benefits, if any, were gained through maintaining or enlarging deficits during the period in question.
    4. in sum, what the important issues other than deficits are at present and how those issues can best be addressed along with the dificit issue going forward in stages.
    1 Aug 2011, 11:31 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    I think we can address most of those points through the failure of collegiate level academics to appreciate how the real world works, and instead apply a false antidote, that of namely, John Maynard Keynes, disciple of Paul Krugman, to invoke an artificial demand stimulus which never works. There should have never been 'a stimulus'. It has never worked in history. They are always complete failures, but apparently we need to relearn these lessons every generation for to the left, history begins the day they are born.
    2 Aug 2011, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt -

     

    I assume from the foregoing comment and others of yours I've read that fundamentally you believe that
    1. Macroeconomics is an illusion; the better view being that the concepts of microeconomics apply equally to the national economy.
    2. It follows that counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy initiatives are simply costly follies. The State should simply preserve the value of the currency and maintain a balanced budget in all economic circumstances.
    3. While the concept that the State should not use its fiscal and monetary powers to minimize economic downturns may mean that such downturns may be swift and deep, a more efficient and effective recovery will happen sooner.
    4. This all may be tough but tats life. Deal with it.
    5. Further, it is more important to strive for justice rather than fairness. Interfering with one's property or taxing one for the benefit of others is unjust. The State legitimately exists therefore only insofar as it facilitates the individual from interference by others and by the community as a whole.

     

    While I believe you are very mistaken, I acknowledge that you have the honesty to say what you believe and don't gloss over the nasty bits.
    2 Aug 2011, 01:52 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    bob, "This all may be tough but tats life. Deal with it."

     

    So we can safely assume that you believe its the purpose of government to remove risk by taking from those that have planned for the downside and give to those that failed to plan correctly. Ops that's socialism, where the government theoretically takes care of everyone. (We all know in reality it does not work that way, but it does make people feel good thinking that it does).
    2 Aug 2011, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Very, very close Bob and I give you a thumbs up. Freedom sets the stage for growth, the only state involvement should be the protection of private property, which is akin to freedom.

     

    In your third point, however, the state has no 'fiscal and monetary powers' since they are granted to them first through confiscatory measures. So in essence they are usually creators of crisis through state expansion and meddling.

     

    The individual is the market and the market is comprised of individuals making millions of micro decisions everyday of which the government cannot impede since it can't know the proper intersection for all these decisions where supply constantly meets (and parts from) demand, again and again. This is freedom. This is uncoercion. Where profits are not stolen by bureaucrats and reshuffled elsewhere in order to purchase more power.

     

    Some quotes from Claude Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850):

     

    "Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

     

    When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.

     

    Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

     

    People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.

     

    Law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

     

    The plans differ; the planners are all alike...

     

    Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

     

    But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

     

    It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

     

    If you wish to prosper, let your customer prosper. When people have learned this lesson, everyone will seek his individual welfare in the general welfare. Then jealousies between man and man, city and city, province and province, nation and nation, will no longer trouble the world.

     

    Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

     

    It is easier to show the disorder that must accompany reform than the order that should follow it.

     

    The sort of dependence that results from exchange, i.e., from commercial transactions, is a reciprocal dependence. We cannot be dependent upon a foreigner without his being dependent on us. Now, this is what constitutes the very essence of society. To sever natural interrelations is not to make oneself independent, but to isolate oneself completely.

     

    ...the statement, “The purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign,” is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

     

    But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

     

    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

     

    We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

     

    Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.

     

    Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

     

    Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.

     

    The law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this. If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

     

    Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice. ...

     

    As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

     

    If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?

     

    It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion—whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government—at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.

     

    Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

     

    And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works."
    2 Aug 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    The oddest part of Big Gov cheerleaders is that they don't even consider how it weakens them(or others) and makes them appear so incapable, whiny, small, helpless, temperamental & demanding, impatient, infantile and envious as it incorporates them further and further, deeper & deeper into the slavery of onerous, ever limitless regulations, restrictions and transitory laws comprised of fines, fees, taxes and threats.

     

    But this is nothing new.

     

    From 1 Samuel 8, from the NIV:

     

    "Israel Asks for a King:

     

    1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.[a] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

     

    4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

     

    6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

     

    10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

     

    19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

     

    21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

     

    The left is a sickening rash upon humanity.
    2 Aug 2011, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • djn21
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    Preach it, Wyatt.
    2 Aug 2011, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Neil -

     

    You shouldn't be so quick to assume that someone adheres to the diametric opposite to some position he or she is critical of. There are lots of alternatives besides exact opposites and these other alternatives are often much to be preferred to the extremes at either end of the spectrum presented.

     

    That, to my mind, is the case here.
    5 Aug 2011, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • bob adamson
    , contributor
    Comments (4557) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt -

     

    Let me say again that you know your mind and do so based on wide reading and systematic thought about the issues. The fact that I come to very different conclusions based on a quite different set of premises take nothing away from my earlier observation.
    5 Aug 2011, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    Facts just slay them, Wyatt. Give them some facts, and the progressives have no bullets other than name calling.
    31 Jul 2011, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt/optionsgirl,

     

    Your talking about 2006 (ancient history) I'm talking about today.

     

    Like I said, who gives a crap what happened in 2006.

     

    But, never-the-less.

     

    Your trying to criticize him for voting against raising the debt in 2006, when that's exactly what you want. But, perhaps you didn't want to hold the debt down then because "W" was a NOT SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN, with a Vice President that "didn't think deficits mattered".

     

    So what's it going to be:

     

    Your for him when he does precisely what you want?
    Your against him when he does precisely what you want?

     

    I think he could give each of you each a gold goose and you'd complain because its white with and orange beak.

     

    He could morph overnight into a fruitcake teabagger and you'd complain because he isn't freakin' crazy enough. I can hear you now, "where's Glen Beck when you need him?"
    1 Aug 2011, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You assume I support Bush? Must be nice thinking in binary terms your whole life like everyone is living in your football game.

     

    So tell me how this thing works where I hate Obama = I love Bush, cheerleader. Its interesting and sad, this world of robots.

     

    I'm a Constitutional minarchist. I hate big government. I believe in a radical reduction in the size of government or what our founders called 'limited government'. Bush was a thousand points of light globalist like his daddy.

     

    Problem is, there's no one on the other side. Everyone on the other side supports bigger and bigger government. Rand Paul is getting close, very close. So is Marco Rubio.
    1 Aug 2011, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    You don't know anything about anyone else's politics, so why do you speculate? It's a rhetorical question--you do it because you don't have a legitimate argument. If you did, you wouldn't be making specious statements about people you don't know. You'd stick to the facts, only you don't have any. You have now stated twice that you don't care about history. That is a weakness, not a strength. If you think 2006 is ancient history, you are horribly misinformed. It is impossible to educate someone who rejects reason. Defying logic is your modus operandi, not mine.

     

    You didn't even read our comments correctly, because your last rebuttal stated the "President" doesn't vote on bills, missing the point entirely that he was a Senator, a voting Senator.

     

    Obama had it right in 2006. But, he's a politician, not a planner or administrator.
    Therefore, he has no problem doing an about face in 2011. That's because he voted "no" in 2006 to create a democratic block, not because he gave a damn. Otherwise, he would not take the other side now. He'd have instituted "change"-- the kind he promised before he was elected, rather than chaos, which is what he has created.
    He has weakened the USA immeasurably in a few short years, and may well go down in history as the worst president ever, in my opinion.

     

    Don't bother to write another redundant, incorrect comment to me. I will not respond.You do not deserve any additional attention, imo.

     

    I have not defended Bush. Find one comment here where I commended Bush. You can't. That's because you made up lies. My words are here as my record. That's the marvel of history. My truthful words are here as a record, along with your invention and lies.
    1 Aug 2011, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (3995) | Send Message
     
    "That's because he voted "no" in 2006 to create a democratic block, not because he gave a damn."

     

    And Obama is the only one in politics to do this? Clue: that's how politics works. Blocks of folks get together to push agendas.

     

    " He'd have instituted "change"-" He didn't? Seems to me he passed a lot of legislation.

     

    Lastly, talking about Obama's ''no'' vote on the debt ceiling raise suggests you support debt ceiling increases on principle. So considering he is in support of that you should be happy.
    1 Aug 2011, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Obama and Reid were Tea Partiers in 2006. Big time tea partiers. listen to them talk for yourself.

     

    Just type in 'obama 2006 against debt ceiling'. Watch it on youtube.

     

    Apparently I can't link to it here. SA editors will remove it.

     

    LOL.
    1 Aug 2011, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5058) | Send Message
     
    THe legislation Obama passed has nothing to do with reducing the debt and living within our means. He didn't even get a budget passed.
    Yesterday I read that health insurers will now have to provide birth control for "free" and not subject to a deductible.
    That's the kind of rule-making we can count on from President Barrack Hussein Obama. Personally, I do not want to pay for birth control via higher premiums. How else will it be paid for? He's a fairy god father sprinkling Loestrin like so much magical fairy dust.
    2 Aug 2011, 11:50 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|