Boehner vs. Reid – II

Nickgb commented that Boehner backed off of his claim that he would forgo the Hastert Rule and allow a straight vote on raising the debt ceiling.

I called Reid out for being he more political partisan on issues like this.  Well, it turns out that Boehner has backed away from his claim and will no longer the straight up and down vote:

(Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday that there is “no way” Republican lawmakers will agree to a measure to raise the nation’s debt ceiling unless it includes conditions to rein in deficit spending.

I think that the government is too big.  And I think that our debt is a problem.  However, I agree that we cannot do normal business by threat of or actually shutting down the government.

The budget fight is one thing.  I think that a strong case can be  made that the budget comes before the individual programs that are in place.  If the budget isn’t big enough to contain those programs, then revenue needs to increase or expenditures need to decrease.

But the debt ceiling?  For some reason that seems different.

21 responses to “Boehner vs. Reid – II

  1. The debt ceiling is worse! Heck, we can have a government shutdown, that’s hard on people, but it takes awhile before the economy is really impacted. If we default? Yowza, it could be global recession all over again! Still, I do think Reid (who is very effective – that’s why the other side doesn’t like him) should offer Boehner a way to claim something. In any conflict you need to give the other side a face saving conclusion, especially if the two sides will butt heads again and you need an ability to work together. Not sure what it is, but Reid has to recognize that he needs to give Boehner the ability to claim something was gained.

    • The debt ceiling is worse!

      If the worst of a default were to come to pass, I agree.

      Heck, we can have a government shutdown, that’s hard on people, but it takes awhile before the economy is really impacted.

      This is my hopeful lesson learned from all of this.

      If we default? Yowza, it could be global recession all over again!

      Remember, we have a WHOLE bunch of choices to pick from when the government is no longer allowed to borrow. Service on our debt is but one of them. We could simply choose other not as catastrophic items.

      Still, I do think Reid (who is very effective – that’s why the other side doesn’t like him)

      Yes, the last two dem leaders have been effective – Pelosi was very powerful.

      Not sure what it is, but Reid has to recognize that he needs to give Boehner the ability to claim something was gained.

      For some reason a three week delay is being talked about. That maybe the way out.

      Pass a clean CR/Debt Limit [for 3 weeks] and then we both get what we want. You pass a clean bill and I’ll negotiate next time.

    • The debt ceiling is something we can’t compromise on. I understand the idea that we should try to reach a compromise, but we can’t reward hostage taking, or they’re just going to do this over and over until they’ve dismantled the government piecemeal. We’ve never had to do this before, until the recent craziness in the GOP.

      Also, raising the debt ceiling ISN’T A DEMOCRATIC POINT! This is something we just need to do. It’s not like we’re giving Boehner a concession in order to get something for ourselves. This is simply a thing that has to be done, regardless of who’s in charge, and Boehner is willing to fuck everything up in exchange for concessions. They get whatever they want, and in exchange we get to … raise the debt ceiling that they want raised too.

  2. Actually it’s a big misconception that we’ll default on our debt if the ceiling isn’t raised. Ask yourself a simple household economic question- For what reason in your household would you need to raise your indebtedness? A) To cover current debts, B) Because you like to pimp your credit limit or, C) To cover anticipated spending over and above the current spending that will result in more loans.

    The answer is C. The government continues to put forth policies and programs that require EVEN MORE DEBT SPENDING THAN WE ALREADY HAVE.

    So, for Obama to claim that we will be causing our country to default is ludicrous theatrics intended to scare. It’s B.S. If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, all it means is that we can’t bond out more of our government spending than we already are. Plain and simple. For Obama that’s a big deal, since the majority of his policies have and continure to revolve around new UNFUNDED spending.

  3. Nick- Who gives a crap about Gingrich there’s a larger issue here.

    The WP doesn’t really contradict anything I said. And I quote-
    “Why it’s an issue now: Currently, the debt limit is set at $14.3 trillion. Around Aug. 2, the Treasury will exhaust that borrowing authority. Because spending currently exceeds revenues by almost 45 percent, if that happens, we will either have to default on our debt or stop funding a substantial portion of the government.”

    So what planet do you come from where that is sane economics? I know that in my household if we get to point where we have to borrow more to keep the lights on, we’d be doing it wrong. And that’s the point. The government is wrong. I don’t care if it’s Obama, or Bush or any political party. If the government has got itself so deeply indebted that the only way to keep the lights on and pay interest on existing bonds is to raise borrowing levels, then it’s wrong.

    • We’ve been fighting about this here and on my blog and all over the place, so I’m not going to reiterate all the arguments against using budgetary measures to affect legislation or the debt ceiling to affect governmental function. There are valid ways to do it, and there are invalid ways to do it. Insisting that validly instituted laws shouldn’t be enforced or executed by refusing to fund them is not a valid execution of legislative authority.

      Meanwhile, every time someone tries to argue politics or policy based on a household model, I just don’t know how to address it. Your home isn’t a superpower. Your home doesn’t have trilateral government or bilateral decisionmakers. Your home does not function like a government. Here’s an analogy for you: “I told my roommate that we should buy a new washer and dryer, but when we got to the store I told him we were getting a blender instead. I had already withdrawn all the money in our joint account, so he could either buy the blender I wanted now, or he could buy nothing at all. As a cosigner on the joint account, I had every right to do it, even if it forced him to accept a unilateral change to our previous agreement.” That’s a much better analogy to what’s happening than your household finances, and it’s still a pretty inapt analogy because THERE’S NO SIMPLE ANALOGY THAT JUSTIFIES AMERICAN POLICY.

      • Meanwhile, every time someone tries to argue politics or policy based on a household model, I just don’t know how to address it.

        The underlying concept is that of a budget.

        Just because the United States’ government is as you describe doe not imply that the congress can just blow by a budget willie nillie. There are constraints, or should be, on what we can spend.

        One of the, and I grant you it’s only one, of the debates is whether or not the budget drives the legislation or the other way around.

        • Yes, Pino, I understand the point of a budget. My point is that the two budgets are not the same at all. This is probably where the underlying policy differences come in; you view the federal programs as a bunch of optional, “wouldn’t it be nice if we could do this” programs. I view them as mandates that the government MUST perform. If government programs were optional, then you could find an appropriate budget and then do as many of them as possible within that reasonable budget, just like a household budget. But in the real world, federal programs are mandated by laws, laws that were passed by congress. Congress is also obliged to raise revenue and allocate the spending so that the Executive can go out and put their programs into effect. That’s why you can’t make an argument that Congress is allowed to legislate through underfunding; that’s simply not how it works. Instead, it’s holding a gun to the worldwide economy’s head because this Congress doesn’t like the laws it was handed and can’t get rid of them in the normal manner.

          Anyway, the household budget simply doesn’t work as an analogy, and it’s folksy simplicity is an insult to the intelligence of anyone trying to have a serious argument. Imagine if your household was forced, by law, to buy a car. You currently don’t have the money saved up, so you need to put it on a credit card. Your wife, sensible woman that I’m sure she is, thinks the law is stupid, so she cuts up your credit card and voila, you no longer can go through with the mandate! Except now you’re violating the law, and your wife’s caprice aside, you’re probably in trouble.

          Here in Washington State, there was actually a citizen lawsuit against the legislature, and the people won, arguing that our state legislature was underfunding education and thus failing in a mandate that they provide adequate education. The mandate here is in our state constitution, but the principle is the same. Congress is obligated to raise revenue and fund the programs that the government has to provide (which are, again, decided by Congress). Budgeting is not a way we make or break laws.

          I hate it when people use analogies to argue for a policy. If two things are analogous, then you can use that analogy to say that you EXPECT one to act like the other. But when it’s human actors, and the government, then (a) the analogy is simply stupid, because they AREN’T analogous, and (b) the fact that you would do something in your house doesn’t justify a completely different type of action in Congress (shutting it down vs. changing spending priorities).

          • Nick- come on man, please, spare us your intelligence, if you can’t make the simple jump from a household budget analogy to the government spending more than it takes in then your law school needs better math classes. You are holding your hand in front of your face and then telling us you can’t see it because it’s really way more complicated.

            We all well aware that the spending legislation train has left the station at this stage.

            However, to put it simple analogies that you hate, it’s just like signing a mortgage that was too big for your budget. The difference is that the government has the ability to keep bonding and printing money instead of cutting expenses from the household budget or defaulting. The net long term effect of bonding and printing money is washing away American citizens’ capital. It makes each of our individual net worth less.

            You can holler all day long about how you think the current method of the republican house is wrong and dangerous. Fine, it may very well be. Unfortunately, it seems crisis creation is the only way to get the jerks on both sides of the aisle to address the much larger problem. That is, our government is spending 45% more than we are taking in and has been for quite a few years.

            And that my friend, is the REAL issue. And it doesn’t get much simpler and folksy than that. There is no magic set of math equations that applies to big government economics that don’t apply to any other business, or household.

          • We all well aware that the spending legislation train has left the station at this stage.

            Yay! Except I don’t understand what this means given your other arguments…

            The net long term effect of bonding and printing money is washing away American citizens’ capital. It makes each of our individual net worth less.

            Printing more money and issuing more bonds is certainly not something that is done without consequence. But issuing more bonds isn’t a horrible technique because the world considers those bonds to be risk-free, and thus the government can print them freely to raise funds and pay them off later (when we have a surplus, as we did under Clinton). It’s more complicated than that, obviously, but the inflationary effects aren’t as damaging as, say, removing public financing that could jump-start the economy.

            Unfortunately, it seems crisis creation is the only way to get the jerks on both sides of the aisle to address the much larger problem.

            I understand the budgetary concerns, which is why I’m in favor of increasing tax revenue in order to balance it. I know you’re going to say that spending should be curtailed instead. Those are valid arguments for us to have. But the shutdown is going to hurt economic recovery and the debt ceiling default is going to trigger a worldwide crisis. (Or, alternatively, if they fail to raise the debt ceiling and the government has to cut funding further, we just have an exacerbated effect a la the shutdown). I don’t believe that crisis creation is a valid way of dealing with the current craptastic functionality in Congress. That’s a problem we need to deal with, but this isn’t the way. Especially because the people pushing this ticking time bomb don’t have real solutions; they’re worse than the rest of these assholes; and honestly, there’s no good outcome here. What is the endgame you see that cures the problems in Washington? They cut funding radically until the government is unable to do anything more than the small government you want? That’s not governance or compromise, that’s hostage taking. We’ll still have the same gridlock.

            There is no magic set of math equations that applies to big government economics that don’t apply to any other business, or household.

            I’m not an economist, and I am actually shamefully ignorant about the economic factors that are all in play here. But what I do know is that you’re wrong, macroeconomics function very differently than microeconomics. Governments don’t work the same as households. The Constitution has laid out different rules than how people run their own finances.

            The idea that we can apply these little homespun wisdoms to the government is very appealing, which is why it shows up in stumps. But it’s simply masking the many complexities that are in play. It’s not convincing to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

      • Nick-

        I know you want to make this seem big and complicated but it’s really not. And the household analogy does fit just fine thank you 😉

        It doesn’t matter if the wheels of spending are already in motion by the time we get to the budget ceiling debate. Just like in my household, the congress and or the president have the power to cut programs and our spending where necessary. We’ve seen no cuts and no attempt to by the ruling party. I was equally dismayed at Bush’s spendthrift ways.

        All of your assertions about how the budget ceiling is a poor way to affect spending is ignoring the elephant in the living room. There are bigger concerns, namely, what kind of government and government debt are we saddling our children with in the name of borrowing to keep ourselves comfortable in the short term. Someone has to pull the plug. If not now, then when? When we die? That would seem to be the consensus among most politicians, just kick the can down the road and conveniently ignore the mountain of debt we are leaving in our wake.

  4. Nick belittling people arguments by calling them homespun, folksy, etc are a poor way to support your argument. What kind of law do you practice? Do you use those tactics in court? Do they work for you? Because really, you sound like a typical leftist, denying the opponents simple truths by throwing up an air of superior intelligence and claiming the whole thing is way more complicated than it really is. While at the same time admitting you know nothing about the simple point of the argument (In this case, economics).

    You can’t have it both ways. Your either wrong and doing a lot of hand waving, or your right and somehow the government can continue to spend more than they take in and somehow it will magically be alright. Because it really is that simple.

    • Here I was thinking Pino had actually managed to bring in a commenter worth engaging with… Homespun and folksy aren’t derogatory, but they’re inapt when trying to propose federal policy.

      This obsession the right has with calling liberals “leftists” in order to tie them to socialism is hilarious, and gives away what’s really at play here. You like your household budget analogy because it supports the conclusion you already have; it the government was running a surplus you’d still want them to get cut back.

      At no point am I saying that I’m right because I’m smarter than you. But if you continue to insist that macroeconomics work the same as your personal household budget, I may start using that.

      Things ARE more complicated than you think they are. There’s a reason we don’t put “some guy with a successful coffee shop” on the board for the Fed. There’s a reason people who study economics for decades can argue and debate the second order effects of quantitative easing. I don’t have to understand nuclear physics to tell you that you can’t explain strong nuclear forces with a magnet analogy. Meanwhile, I said I was shamefully ignorant, I didn’t say I know “nothing” about economics. But since you seem to think that credentials matter here, would you like to give us some proof of your economics bona fides?

      If your household analogy was accurate, how have we operated a deficit for almost every year in the past 70? Can you run your household like that? Of course not. You know your household analogy is overly simplistic, or you’re ignoring facts.

  5. “Here I was thinking Pino had actually managed to bring in a commenter worth engaging with… ” – So your implying I’m not worth it and yet you continue to do so. In one fell swoop you’ve lowered yourself to demeaning the debater and then engaging him on that lower rung you claim he’s at. Keep it clean billy 😉

    My argument is simplistic because it states a simple truth that is immutable. It’s a truth that will be valid no matter the size the of the economic entity. That is- the government can’t continue to spend more than it receives forever. To say it’s more complicated than that is a logical fallacy.

    Further, the government has the means to pay what it owes. If your claim is that we’re all hosed because the congress and the president already passed legislation that would put us over the debt ceiling then your ignoring another simple piece of logic. That is this- Clearly congress and the president could budget out what they knew the debt ceiling would be and spend within those limits. To think that they just passed this and now *BOOM* mean old republicans pulled the rug out is ludicrous. Congress and this president are equally responsible for this mess. They knew our current spending limitation and what the current debt ceiling is. They CHOSE to spend more. That in and of itself is irresponsible considering our current economic situation.

    Just because we’ve operated at a deficit for the past 70 years, as you say, doesn’t mean it will always work or will continue to work.

    So if you want to know how we’ve operated at a deficit for the past 70 years, that’s relatively simple to answer also. We (the USA) is an enormous economic entity, to use another analogy, we’re a big corporation. We have enormous capital and banks have a lot of faith in us. For that reason, we have extremely good credit and so banks, other countries, etc, have confidence in lending to us and have had that confidence for many years. If we continue to borrow, there will be a point at which it will all unravel.

    Also, we have had continued inflation for the past 70 years. Inflation wipes out debt. One way inflation is caused is by the fed printing more money. They have and continue to do that.

  6. Also, we have had continued inflation for the past 70 years.

    Well, not really. We’ve had inflation most of those years, but 1% inflation isn’t really that big. When you compare that to double digit inflation (such as in the early 80s), 1% is practically not inflation at all. You’re right, of course, that inflation can wipe out debt. This is one of the many reasons you can’t use your household example to explain or propose macro-policy. Households can’t manipulate inflation in order to manage debt.

    No one disagrees that the government cannot operate indefinitely with deficits. We’re completely in agreement that the government should be turning it into a surplus as soon as practically possible. As I said earlier, you and I probably disagree simply on the way to get there, I would support increasing tax revenue and you’d support cutting expenses. As I also said in that earlier comment, that’s a perfectly valid political debate for us to have.

    But what is undisputed, except by some of the nutjobs pushing this Tea Party narrative about the debt ceiling, is that the government shutdown is hurting the economic recovery that we desperately need. Also undisputed is that failing to raise the debt ceiling is going to be catastrophic. There’s a reason that McCain, Boehner, and the rest of the establishment GOP all agreed that this was a horrible idea (until Boehner was forced into it). Shutting down the government is hurting the economy, and the debt ceiling needs to be raised or there will be serious consequences.

    What is happening now is a small group of GOP House members is saying that they’re willing to suffer those effects, which of course don’t actually affect them personally, in order to achieve political goals that they can’t get through the established practices. People can hate Obamacare all they want, but even Pino recognizes that it’s a valid law that has withstood constitutional challenges. If the Tea Party wants to get rid of it, they should win some more seats and do it properly. Holding the budget hostage until the majority of the House caves is not legislating, it’s political tantrum throwing.

  7. “Well, not really. We’ve had inflation most of those years, but 1% inflation isn’t really that big…”

    Dude your not even close. Here’s the CPI from 1913 to present. In the “70” year timespan you seem to like, I count a percent increase of <= 1% exactly 17 times. All other years are much greater.

    http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/

    As far as the government turning a surplus as soon as possible. How do you expect that to happen? Will Obama suddenly agree to do that when the house republicans back down? If it hasn't happened in 70 years when will it? The point is, there is absolutely no incentive for anyone in congress to control spending. There simply isn't. And that the biggest problem of all. Yes, house republicans are using a blunt tool. But again, the blame is equal. Obama and democrats did not have to increase spending. No one was hold a gun to their head to spend more.

    In my mind, the ideal ending to this situation would be if Obama would offer some spending concessions in return for passing a resolution on the debt ceiling. But, it's not going to happen. Obama and Reid are absolutely refusing to negotiate.

    You'll probably be happy to know I think in the eye of the public the house republicans will lose this battle. Obama knows he has the upper hand. Boehner has caved to him too many times. Now he gets a backbone when it's already too late.

    P.S. Your last argument was much cleaner except for the reference to nut jobs in the Tea Party. The Tea Party are not nutjobs. Their normal everyday people just like you and I that believe in smaller government, less taxes and more personal freedom. That may seem nutty to you, but not to many. It is a valid and sane point of view.

  8. Dude your not even close. Here’s the CPI from 1913 to present. In the “70″ year timespan you seem to like, I count a percent increase of <= 1% exactly 17 times. All other years are much greater.

    And it was under 2% over 20 times. It was under 3% another 13 times. And so on. 1% isn’t a magic number, my point is that small amounts of inflation are not significant (and are expected) compared to 7-15% inflation we’ve seen at other times. When you say that we’ve suffered inflation continuously for 70 years, you’re glossing over the handful of times we’ve actually had deflation, and you’re lumping in negligible inflation with massive inflation. Do you think that 0% inflation is quantitatively better than 1% inflation? 1% more than 2%? We all agree that some inflation just happens, and we all agree that 15% inflation is really bad (and pretty rare in our past) while small rates of inflation are acceptable and far more common.

    As far as the government turning a surplus as soon as possible. How do you expect that to happen? Will Obama suddenly agree to do that when the house republicans back down? If it hasn’t happened in 70 years when will it?

    The point is that we should come to an agreement on getting the budget more in line with revenue. That can come in the form of raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes, or raising tax rates on the highest wage earners. It can also come in the form of shrinking expenditures. The Senate version of the CR already shrank the bill to GOP numbers, how’s that for compromise?

    In my mind, the ideal ending to this situation would be if Obama would offer some spending concessions in return for passing a resolution on the debt ceiling. But, it’s not going to happen. Obama and Reid are absolutely refusing to negotiate.

    As I included above, they already did that. And besides, why does a small faction of one party in one chamber get to demand concessions on already-enacted law? How would you feel if the next GOP President had to deal with a filibuster threat on any budget unless he agreed to fully fund abortion clinics in every major city? Would you insist that he should negotiate?

    Your last argument was much cleaner except for the reference to nut jobs in the Tea Party.

    Even many members of the GOP think the Tea Party is crazy. Wanting smaller government and lower taxes is one thing. Thinking that shutting down the government is responsible is another. This is a party that thinks Obama should be impeached for Obamacare, ignoring the fact that the President doesn’t actually pass laws. They think he should be impeached for the PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress (and was drafted by GWB). While many Tea Partiers are not birthers, I don’t know a birther that isn’t a Tea Partier.

    You think that shutting down the government is good. You think that failing to raise the debt ceiling won’t be that bad. You have every right to believe those things. But your personal opinion flies in the face of mainstream opinion, economists, the Chamber of Commerce, “leftists”, and the Senate GOP.

  9. “And it was under 2% over 20 times. It was under 3% another 13 times. And so on. 1% isn’t a magic number, my point is that small amounts of inflation are not significant (and are expected) compared to 7-15% inflation we’ve seen at other times. When you say that we’ve suffered inflation continuously for 70 years, you’re glossing over the handful of times we’ve actually had deflation, and you’re lumping in negligible inflation with massive inflation. Do you think that 0% inflation is quantitatively better than 1% inflation? 1% more than 2%? We all agree that some inflation just happens, and we all agree that 15% inflation is really bad (and pretty rare in our past) while small rates of inflation are acceptable and far more common.”

    Inflation since 1982 is almost 100%.

    How much inflation is acceptable to you? Can you count on a pay raise of 3% year over year for the next 30 years. Will your income be 100% more in 30 years. If not, you’ve lost money.

    “The point is that we should come to an agreement on getting the budget more in line with revenue. That can come in the form of raising corporate tax rates and closing loopholes, or raising tax rates on the highest wage earners. It can also come in the form of shrinking expenditures. The Senate version of the CR already shrank the bill to GOP numbers, how’s that for compromise?”

    You avoided the question I asked. Everybody can waive their arms all day long and say it should happen. But by your own admission it hasn’t happened for the last 70 years. Government spending has never decreased. Even in this time of recession we have the the highest explosion of government spending in our history. So I ask you again. When will it happen? How do you expect it to happen?

    “As I included above, they already did that. And besides, why does a small faction of one party in one chamber get to demand concessions on already-enacted law? How would you feel if the next GOP President had to deal with a filibuster threat on any budget unless he agreed to fully fund abortion clinics in every major city? Would you insist that he should negotiate?”

    Wrong- Obama, the shifty negotiator that he is, roughly stated, “I’ll discuss some cuts when they agree to raise the debt ceiling.” So, this effectively has turned into a blinking contest. Both sides have the ability to back down, not just one. And back to my earlier point, Obama and congress new very well they were passing spending laws that were over and above what our current debt limit was. Year after year, this keeps happening.

    “Even many members of the GOP think the Tea Party is crazy. Wanting smaller government and lower taxes is one thing. Thinking that shutting down the government is responsible is another. This is a party that thinks Obama should be impeached for Obamacare, ignoring the fact that the President doesn’t actually pass laws. They think he should be impeached for the PATRIOT Act, which was passed by Congress (and was drafted by GWB). While many Tea Partiers are not birthers, I don’t know a birther that isn’t a Tea Partier.”

    So if the benchmark of sanity is the established GOP? Let me hold my nose while I ponder that. And what the hell do birthers have to do with this? Cripes dude. Want to talk about fringe elements in the Dem party also for good measure? I know we could list a few, but I won’t bother since I’m trying to stay on topic and be respectful.

    “You think that shutting down the government is good. You think that failing to raise the debt ceiling won’t be that bad. You have every right to believe those things. But your personal opinion flies in the face of mainstream opinion, economists, the Chamber of Commerce, “leftists”, and the Senate GOP.”

    I can guarantee a debt ceiling resolution will get passed. This is all brinksmanship and sometimes it’s good for the politicians to stare down the barrel of gun. As for shutting down government, this isn’t a new thing, and it isn’t even the longest span of time this has occurred. There have been 17 government funding gaps and shutdowns since 1976, ranging in length from one to 21 days. None has caused a market meltdown.

    Relax your rage. Government will get back to spending like drunken sailors before you know it.

    • First of all, you’re using the CPI which measures price inflation, while arguing against printing more money, or monetary inflation. While related, these are very different concepts. Which are we discussing? Second, inflation-adjusted incomes have risen almost every year except for the last few, so clearly price inflation isn’t outpacing increased income. In case you’re suspicious of my evil lefty math, or my elitist intellectual line-drawing, note that a lot of not-so-lefties agree:

      http://www.frumforum.com/the-gops-unhealthy-inflation-obsession/
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/11/02/bernanke-to-gop-get-your-criticism-right-jobs-not-inflation-is-the-problem/
      http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/02/republicans-for-deflation/

      So, tell me again how devastating all this inflation has been.

      As for the Senate and the Democrats already passing a CR at GOP levels, it’s true. Read, for example, this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/02/the-shutdown-is-ridiculous-the-fight-just-below-the-surface-is-not/ While you’re correct that Obama has also said that he wouldn’t discuss any more cuts until a CR is passed, the Senate legislation already includes a lot of concessions to the GOP, and the President is talking about discussing more concessions when the budget is passed..

      As for avoiding your question about how this will lead to a government “come-to-jesus” moment on the budget, I can’t tell you for sure how we get to that point. I don’t think it’s our primary concern until the economy is back on its feet. But you haven’t shown me how the Tea Party intends to do it either. Having a platform that demands a balanced budget is very different than having one, and I don’t think their constituents are going to love them as much when they finally figure out what’s going on the chopping block. Why do you have the burden of coming up with a balanced budget plan while I don’t? Because you are the one who thinks a government shutdown is a constructive step, while I do not.

      A two-week-long government shutdown will not cause a market meltdown, though it isn’t great for the economy (by which I mean it will actively harm it). The debt ceiling, as pino noted in his post, is different. I guess we may find out very soon if you are right or wrong.

  10. “First of all, you’re using the CPI which measures price inflation, while arguing against printing more money, or monetary inflation. While related, these are very different concepts”

    Um no. They are interrelated. While the complete relationship is debated, the correlation between monetary inflation and price inflation is accepted as true. If the the Fed was pumping for debt relief purposes rather than because of a strong demand for the dollar, then it will most likely lead to price inflation.

    As to your references, they are mostly discussing monetary policy from Keynesian policy view. Keynesian economics are more associated with leftist politics.

    “As for avoiding your question about how this will lead to a government “come-to-jesus” moment on the budget, I can’t tell you for sure how we get to that point. I don’t think it’s our primary concern until the economy is back on its feet. But you haven’t shown me how the Tea Party intends to do it either. Having a platform that demands a balanced budget is very different than having one, and I don’t think their constituents are going to love them as much when they finally figure out what’s going on the chopping block. Why do you have the burden of coming up with a balanced budget plan while I don’t? Because you are the one who thinks a government shutdown is a constructive step, while I do not.”

    Other than admitting you don’t have a clue how we might control the dangers of government spending, very little here makes sense. I have a burden and you don’t? What? Anyways, It’s clear you don’t really care. You prefer the spending. It’s OK, I get it. It’s the government not a household, right? It’s way more complicated and they can just keep spending. We’ll figure it out later….

    This is all politics, and it always has been. From both sides. It’s like watching WWF. To prove my point, I’ll leave this here. It’s been passed around, but it’s worth a reminder-

    Senator Barack Obama, 2006-
    “‘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 US Government can not 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.”

    I know he claims he’s way smarter now, that’s why he changed his position.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *