Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[DCZards]

I'm guessing that most Americans would support the President using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling if the far right wingers in the House are as asinine and uncompromising as they were the last time.

[popper]

I'm guessing that most Americans would support the President using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling if the far right wingers in the House are as asinine and uncompromising as they were the last time.

Even if it's unconstitutional? This concerns me DCZ because if most Americans believe that we can breach the Constitution when expedient then we are no longer a country of law, but one of men. This will surely lead to our demise.

Edit - We are borrowing $1 Trillion plus a year. Would a fair compromise be that we cut half of that?

[noworriesinmd]

I've avoided this topic.
No party has a mandate.
There will of the American people is 52% for and 48% against. (approximation)
Rural America's agenda is different than Urban America (Hmmm. why they created the House vs Senate).
I've heard various things, like using the 14th Amendment or the President has the power to "coin" money so why not create 1T platinum coins.
Rs and Ds agendas are diametrically opposed. Where can there be compromise?

I'm totally against secession. However I am a small federal gov't guy. Individuals in Washington cannot create laws to better the whole country because the people in New York's priorities are different than the priorities of the people in South Dakota. When the Federal Gov't starts taking on too many roles you get what you have now. Politics is LOCAL, that is why the House will be Red for awhile.

The Federal Gov't role should be limited, protect commerce and protect the people.
Health Care should not be controlled by a gov't mandate - Medicare and Medicaid are loved by all, but policies are determined not by "us", but by special interest We point to Developed countries, but there are only two countries larger population-wise than the US.....India and China. The largest "developed" country in the world that we point to is Japan..we are 3 times larger. The next is Germany...we are 5 times larger.

The tax debate centered on "millionaires" and "billionaires", but in reality they were talking about taxing anyone making more than 200K (the debate was set at a false 250K for couples)....it was 200k. "millionaires" and "billionaires" make up 0.08% of the 200k+ people and 0.005% of the US population. We live on the fringes. A millionaire for tax reasons is anyone with a net-worth of 6.8M or who makes 598k a year.

I have no desire to get into this debate. Social Programs (by far) and Military spending are the elephants in the room that no one wants to tackle.

Ask a R what do you want to cut and they can't give you a program. They just say the Gov't spends to much.
Ask a D what do you want to do to bring in more programs, and they say tax the rich.

Problem with both approaches....they will not work....EVER.

The whole system is messed up, but if you know your history...Regan subverted Congress's (power of the purse) by doing the Iran-Contra deal. FDR wanted to replace the whole Supreme Court to push through the New Deal. Roberts probably voted for the healthcare act because the Supreme Court was at risk voting otherwise.

If Obama raises the debt ceiling, what will happen....nothing. People will bitc** and moan, but it will be done. A second term is bad for a President because you get used to unlimited power. That we where all Presidents go wrong.

Just remember, a politician's job is to get re-elected. Their job is to say "yes" to as many people as possible while saying "no" to as few people as possible. The reality is that you are getting the most polarized politicians through our primary system. How most districts are drawn if a R votes for the debt ceiling...they will be out of a job. If a D votes to remove a social program then they will be out of a job.

Ask yourself, should power be concentrated in washington or your home state. once you answer that question, then we'll start to heal as a nation.

[hands11]

I'm guessing that most Americans would support the President using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling if the far right wingers in the House are as asinine and uncompromising as they were the last time.

Even if it's unconstitutional? This concerns me DCZ because if most Americans believe that we can breach the Constitution when expedient then we are no longer a country of law, but one of men. This will surely lead to our demise.

Edit - We are borrowing $1 Trillion plus a year. Would a fair compromise be that we cut half of that?

It won't be done if it is unconstitutional. I think a person that was a constitutional lawyer would know what is constitutional. And if it wasn't he would get challenged. Kind of like Obama care was challenged.

No if congress would have actually have lifted a finger to help the economy over the last two years, we would have less of a deficit. You can't be the ones causing the problem and then crying foul.

You do realize the deficit is going back down and so is the debt to GDP. Its just happening slower then it could have.

[popper]

I've avoided this topic.
No party has a mandate.
There will of the American people is 52% for and 48% against. (approximation)
Rural America's agenda is different than Urban America (Hmmm. why they created the House vs Senate).
I've heard various things, like using the 14th Amendment or the President has the power to "coin" money so why not create 1T platinum coins.
Rs and Ds agendas are diametrically opposed. Where can there be compromise?

I'm totally against secession. However I am a small federal gov't guy. Individuals in Washington cannot create laws to better the whole country because the people in New York's priorities are different than the priorities of the people in South Dakota. When the Federal Gov't starts taking on too many roles you get what you have now. Politics is LOCAL, that is why the House will be Red for awhile.

The Federal Gov't role should be limited, protect commerce and protect the people.
Health Care should not be controlled by a gov't mandate - Medicare and Medicaid are loved by all, but policies are determined not by "us", but by special interest We point to Developed countries, but there are only two countries larger population-wise than the US.....India and China. The largest "developed" country in the world that we point to is Japan..we are 3 times larger. The next is Germany...we are 5 times larger.

The tax debate centered on "millionaires" and "billionaires", but in reality they were talking about taxing anyone making more than 200K (the debate was set at a false 250K for couples)....it was 200k. "millionaires" and "billionaires" make up 0.08% of the 200k+ people and 0.005% of the US population. We live on the fringes. A millionaire for tax reasons is anyone with a net-worth of 6.8M or who makes 598k a year.

I have no desire to get into this debate. Social Programs (by far) and Military spending are the elephants in the room that no one wants to tackle.

Ask a R what do you want to cut and they can't give you a program. They just say the Gov't spends to much.
Ask a D what do you want to do to bring in more programs, and they say tax the rich.

Problem with both approaches....they will not work....EVER.

The whole system is messed up, but if you know your history...Regan subverted Congress's (power of the purse) by doing the Iran-Contra deal. FDR wanted to replace the whole Supreme Court to push through the New Deal. Roberts probably voted for the healthcare act because the Supreme Court was at risk voting otherwise.

If Obama raises the debt ceiling, what will happen....nothing. People will bitc** and moan, but it will be done. A second term is bad for a President because you get used to unlimited power. That we where all Presidents go wrong.

Just remember, a politician's job is to get re-elected. Their job is to say "yes" to as many people as possible while saying "no" to as few people as possible. The reality is that you are getting the most polarized politicians through our primary system. How most districts are drawn if a R votes for the debt ceiling...they will be out of a job. If a D votes to remove a social program then they will be out of a job.

Ask yourself, should power be concentrated in washington or your home state. once you answer that question, then we'll start to heal as a nation.

Well said. I'm in the "power concentrated in my home state" camp.

[popper]

I'm guessing that most Americans would support the President using the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling if the far right wingers in the House are as asinine and uncompromising as they were the last time.

Even if it's unconstitutional? This concerns me DCZ because if most Americans believe that we can breach the Constitution when expedient then we are no longer a country of law, but one of men. This will surely lead to our demise.

Edit - We are borrowing $1 Trillion plus a year. Would a fair compromise be that we cut half of that?

It won't be done if it is unconstitutional. I think a person that was a constitutional lawyer would know what is constitutional. And if it wasn't he would get challenged. Kind of like Obama care was challenged.

No if congress would have actually have lifted a finger to help the economy over the last two years, we would have less of a deficit. You can't be the ones causing the problem and then crying foul.

You do realize the deficit is going back down and so is the debt to GDP. Its just happening slower then it could have.

Congress did something extraordinary to "help" the economy " in the last two terms hands. They borrowed a trillion each year from future generations to benefit present generations. They passed a 900 Billion stimulus, bailed out banks, insurance companies, auto manufacturers, unions, extended unemployment to 99 weeks and a passed a massive health care plan that is supposed to reduce our health care cost. IMO most of the above actually hurt the economy but I don't know how you can argue with the fact that congress did a lot to "help" the economy.

Edit - Much of this was done in years 1 and 2 and less in years 3 and 4. I mention this because I know that your point was confined to the last 24 months vs. the preceeding 24 months.

[hands11]

Kind of an over simplification if you study history.

States have abused power in the past as well. Usually based on civil right issues.

The system is actually still working even though the Tea people are mucking it up for the moment. States just passed laws that the Fed hasn't so states still have power.

We are still all better off united then we are divided.

But in a snap shot, it always looks broken at some level. Such is the nature of things. People focus on what is broken and not what works so it always looks broken. It isn't. Now it almost went way off track. Thats what would have happen if Mitt was elected. But the people got it right re-election Obama. It looked like a close call but int the end it really wasn't. It was a blow out because America woke up like Sam J told them to.

[hands11]

Obama is a smart strategy person. I trust he will play this so the least damage is done to the nation while also hanging the Tea people and extreme Rs out to dry so the Dems can gain more seats in the mid term elections. I don't hate that the Tea people moment happened. The system needs a good shock every once in a while so the public can see what a failure some ideas are when they are actually turned into policy and power. Vaginal probes. Come on.

In four years Obama will hand over a lot of momentum. The economy will be in better shape. The debt will be reduced as a percent of GDP. He will hand over the keys to the next Dem president that may likely be Hilliary, the first women president. The country will continue to mature and improve. We will start to have a healthier middle class again and that will make the economy more stable. The overall stress level of the nation will continue to go down. The war and jail decade will end. People will get back to what is important. People. Family. Fun. I see some good times ahead for people looking to fall in love and start families.

Rs will return to their best more effective role. An opposition party that molds legislation on the edges but doesn't form it or implement it. They are part of the checks and balances which is needed. They just are not good as a governing party.

So far my predictions from Pre R primaries have happened as I projected. Here is hoping I get this part right as well.

Good times ahead. Just one more job to do before we get there. Dems need to clean out some more Rs in the midterm elections. I'm not so concerned about them taking it over yet. There is so much political advantage to watching the Rs stumble and bumble.

Do you realize the first thing they introduced in this new congress was Michelle Bachmann

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/bachmann ... obamacare/

Congress has now voted 33 to repeal Obamacare. This makes 34. And they know it won't pass the Senate and even if it did. Obama is not signing that. Hey, I get voting on it a few times for political reasons. By 34 times ?

This still is political gold. Thanks Michelle. Keep up the good work.

[popper]

Obama is a smart strategy person. I trust he will play this so the least damage is done to the nation while also hanging the Tea people and extreme Rs out to dry so the Dems can gain more seats in the mid term elections. I don't hate that the Tea people moment happened. The system needs a good shock every once in a while so the public can see what a failure some ideas are when they are actually turned into policy and power. Vaginal probes. Come on.

In four years Obama will hand over a lot of momentum. The economy will be in better shape. The debt will be reduced as a percent of GDP. He will hand over the keys to the next Dem president that may likely be Hilliary, the first women president. The country will continue to mature and improve. We will start to have a healthier middle class again and that will make the economy more stable. The overall stress level of the nation will continue to go down. The war and jail decade will end. People will get back to what is important. People. Family. Fun. I see some good times ahead for people looking to fall in love and start families.

Rs will return to their best more effective role. An opposition party that molds legislation on the edges but doesn't form it or implement it. They are part of the checks and balances which is needed. They just are not good as a governing party.

So far my predictions from Pre R primaries have happened as I projected. Here is hoping I get this part right as well.

Good times ahead. Just one more job to do before we get there. Dems need to clean out some more Rs in the midterm elections. I'm not so concerned about them taking it over yet. There is so much political advantage to watching the Rs stumble and bumble.

Do you realize the first thing they introduced in this new congress was Michelle Bachmann

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/04/bachmann ... obamacare/

Congress has now voted 33 to repeal Obamacare. This makes 34. And they know it won't pass the Senate and even if it did. Obama is not signing that. Hey, I get voting on it a few times for political reasons. By 34 times ?

This still is political gold. Thanks Michelle. Keep up the good work.

Hands - Just curious. Do you think most Dems would support Hillary for President after two reports revealed "systemic management and leadership failure" at the State Dept.? I know when Rumsfeld presided over the Abu Grabi fiasco that I and many other conservatives were calling for his head.

[noworriesinmd]

@hands - I now know you are not an economist and you need to not follow the hype (I'm not attacking you)

EVERY modern President has handed over an economy going into recession.

Bush - Obama
Clinton - Bush
Reagan - Bush/Clinton

I was taking an Economics class at a top 10 University when Bush #2 was elected and that was our finals question, to predict where the economy was going and what we'd do to solve the "predicted" recession.

I know I over simplified things. However, people try to make things complicated to enslave minds and to make a topic more complicated than it should be. There is a reason why we are not a direct Democracy (people...unfortunately don't always think long term)

I'd rather debate simple principles
1. If you spend more than you take in, you will run out of money.
2. It is easier to make a deal with 2 people in the room vs 20. (State coming to consensus vs Country)
3. A person will rarely do something that goes against their self interest
4. Deals that done in back rooms and rarely are better than ones vetted by a truly free market.

[gesa2]

I don't get any of the logic behind the debt ceiling. Congress appropriates funds and sets the tax rates, not the president. Every bit of that debt is already encoded in budgets that have already passed. If you believe in changing the budget, then change the budget, don't default. It's like me saying to my wife "Our spending is out of control, we need to stick to our budget better. So I'm not going to pay our mortgage". It makes no sense at all.

[hands11]

First of. Just watching the Chris Hayes show that comes on Sat and Sunday morning. I really recommend everyone who is interesting in learning about policy watch it. Doesn't matter which side you line up with, it's just a very good show that explains the details of policies. They cover what is going on much more then promoting what should go on.

Here is something I didn't know before watching it this time. Seems NASCAR got a tax brake in this last deal. We all know that is in our national interest - lol Chris Hayes response was funny. He said, people like NASCAR then laughed. He is just a really smart person. How he knows so much about policy and process amazes me.

The payroll tax holiday was left to expire and got little coverage in the news. I'm fine with that. If we want to say Social Security pays for itself as it has, then we don't want money from the general fund paying for part of it which is what was happening with the payroll tax holiday. If they want to do some forms of tax cuts for the middle class as stimulus ( which is what this was holiday was for ), they need to do it another way. Bush just sent everyone a check. Remember. Same effect. Different name. Obviously less overhead in just taking less out of your check then having to send you one but names matter.

As for Hilliary. Honestly. I don't know how people will respond to that when the time comes. It will need to get vetted and it will. We are talking 3 years from now also. You know like I know that a majority of people don't understand these type of things in great detail. I just know in general that the macro momentum is that their are more women in politics. The senate just added several women. I think there will be momentum for any viable Dem and a women Dem will have an advantage. She is a smart experienced women. Hillary was a first lady. Then a Senator. Then a head of State. She has the experience and the Clinton name is still a good one. He earned her spot as next in line. I don't think Biden would want the job. I could be wrong.

I would think it is shes to lose. If we are talking her against Chrisy. Well, he has the added baggage of being an R, fat and not a women. If you haven't noticed. The pendulum has swung. Being an conservative R is like being a liberal Dem used to be. That doesn't help having an R next to your name. People like to vote for the winning team and right now, that is the Dems.

If I was to take a wild guess, I would say most popular labels people would identify with today politically would be a moderate dem or progressive dem. And those number will grow from here until next election.

Christie is an interesting dude. I'm sure he could make a bigger name for himself nationally by running in the primaries, but not sure his message would be better then Hilliary. Now he does have the advantage of being a huge man. Maybe the country is ready for it first Fat Man president since TV. Hmmm. I think they would go women before they go Fat. Christie has time. He is still pretty young. But honestly, I don't think he will ever be president. He will be a McCain type. A player, but not the leader of the nation.

If you know history, emancipation goes in this order. People of race i.e. being black. Then women. The Gay. I don't think an openly gay president would happen for a while. Not in my life. I don't think at least. But the white guy string has been broken. I think you will see a Spanish one soon enough. But it will be a Dem Spanish. Not a token.

The country just did their first black skinned president. Two terms even. A women will happen soon. Hillary makes a lot of sense and she isn't getting any younger. The country may just want to do it. Hard to overcome that kind momentum. It had a lot to do with Obama's first term election. Same will be true for a women. When the country is ready, they are ready.

[hands11]

@hands - I now know you are not an economist and you need to not follow the hype (I'm not attacking you)

EVERY modern President has handed over an economy going into recession.

Bush - Obama
Clinton - Bush
Reagan - Bush/Clinton

I was taking an Economics class at a top 10 University when Bush #2 was elected and that was our finals question, to predict where the economy was going and what we'd do to solve the "predicted" recession.

I know I over simplified things. However, people try to make things complicated to enslave minds and to make a topic more complicated than it should be. There is a reason why we are not a direct Democracy (people...unfortunately don't always think long term)

I'd rather debate simple principles
1. If you spend more than you take in, you will run out of money.
2. It is easier to make a deal with 2 people in the room vs 20. (State coming to consensus vs Country)
3. A person will rarely do something that goes against their self interest
4. Deals that done in back rooms and rarely are better than ones vetted by a truly free market.

Excellent. You sound like a smart person who is fair minded. I have no problem debating with people like that.

I also studied business in college and took economics classes so I know a little though its been a few years since I was in school. My last 20 years have been building a company more on the sales, marketing, business and product development side of things. So calling something a laffer's curve isn't so much my way as much as describing a laffer's curve principle without the name. But I don't mind people using the wonk talk. It gets me to look it up and then I remember some about the actual names for things.

As for simple principles. 1 and 2 are clear cut. Can't really argue against that.
3 is more subjective. It depends on what you see as your self interest. Me or big picture. Do you do what is good for you personally or what is good for your kids and family which you view as good for you personally. Take that a step farther and some would say what is best for my country is good for me personally. A patriot. Some people give there very lives following this logic of self interest. Then you have people that say what is best for the world is good for me personally because that is what is best for my family therefor me. And every mix of those things. So that is not so clear cut. But it is central to the debate because of how different people focus on this topic differently.

4 is kind of messy as well. That can mean lots of things. The masses can be very stupid at times. But if we have politically honest people and a smart public, then 4 can work well. Sadly, the masses can get feed bad information and when they are, they can vote for bad things. Remember. Hitler was elected. Germany was a national moment that got out of control. Hitler even started his legislative sessions talking about God. 4 is not as clean cut as you make it.

Most people don't know the first thing about economics nor have they studies it at the college level. So you are talking about the vast majority of the electorate not having any idea about this stuff. Then even of those that do, you have macro and micro people. You have capitalists. The combination of that along with your #3 makes for vastly different view on how economics should get applied as policy.

There is lies the read debate. And thats without even introducing the physiologic facts in how people take in information and process it. That is where the messaging of politics comes in. At its worst, it propaganda. At its best, it inspiring a nation to greatness.

[popper]

I don't get any of the logic behind the debt ceiling. Congress appropriates funds and sets the tax rates, not the president. Every bit of that debt is already encoded in budgets that have already passed. If you believe in changing the budget, then change the budget, don't default. It's like me saying to my wife "Our spending is out of control, we need to stick to our budget better. So I'm not going to pay our mortgage". It makes no sense at all.

You make a really good point gesa2. I think the simple explanation for why R's would exercise their authority to restrict additional debt now vs. in the past is that the Fed recently announced that they will double their monthly contribution to stimulus, which will now total $80 Billion per month vs. the previous $40 Billion a month. They are doing so to keep interest rates low and because there are not enough pigeons to finance our long term U.S. debt right now. Congress has no control over the Fed however the President does and he is happy about the Fed's actions. The only way the R's can stop the insanity is to restrict debt by way of their authority over the debt limit.

If the Fed refrained from this stimulus interest rates would skyrocket and all hell would break loose. Instead, they are pushing the "all hell breaks loose" down the road and making a solution to our economic problems that much harder and more costly to achieve.

[hands11]

I don't get any of the logic behind the debt ceiling. Congress appropriates funds and sets the tax rates, not the president. Every bit of that debt is already encoded in budgets that have already passed. If you believe in changing the budget, then change the budget, don't default. It's like me saying to my wife "Our spending is out of control, we need to stick to our budget better. So I'm not going to pay our mortgage". It makes no sense at all.

Lol.

Awesome and concise. Send that to the DNC and tell them to use it. You are right. Most people don't understand this and that is how they get fooled when politicians lie to them with messaging that sounds like it makes sense. Obama wants a blank check to spend as much as he wants. lol.. Sounds like a bad thing. I don't want the President to have that power. Only the negotiations on what would get spent already happened when they appropriated it. That was the time to fight about it. Besides, as the economy grows, debt levels will keep going up even if debt to GDP stays the same.

All that is happening is the Rs are trying to get two bits at the Apple. They want what they want and so they are trying to use this as a way to get it. Like Blazing Saddles the movie. If you haven't watch it, there was scene where this black fella, I think he was the sheriff, well he ended up in some old Western white town and they were coming at him. So he points the gun to his head and say, don't move and the N gets it. Then he walked himself out the room with the gun to his head holding himself hostage.

What is funny.. well not funny.. crazy actually .. is that the Rs used the logic of spending and then growing the economy fast enough so that growth would lower the debt to GDP as the core of there platform and economic principle for the last 25 years. Only their spending was in the form of tax cuts that were not paid for. Do people really not understand this ?