wiegie Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 A handbag away from our debt ceiling “Mum?” “Yes, dear?” “What do you and Dad keep arguing about late at night?” “You should be asleep. When Daddy and I have our little chats, it’s past your bedtime.” “Mum, I’m 15 – a bit old for bedtime. Anyway, I usually ignore your arguments but this one seems important.” “Well, it is important. We are debating whether to raise the family’s debt ceiling.” “Debt ceiling?” “It’s the limit on what we can borrow.” “Doesn’t the bank manager decide that?” “Yes, ultimately Mr Foss-Smythe can refuse to lend money to us. But your father and I have a different system. For years and years, we’ve taken a solemn vow never to let our household borrowing exceed £500 without both of us explicitly agreeing to raise the limit.” “So you were arguing about whether to borrow more than £500?” “Darling, we’ve already borrowed £500,000. Houses aren’t cheap these days, even in Hackney. The point is that your father and I agreed each time we needed to raise the debt ceiling. But now we can’t agree. Your father wants me to cut back on my spending, or he won’t agree.” “So, what happens if he doesn’t agree?” “Then we have to ensure that our household debt doesn’t go over £500,000.” “Fine. £500,000 is a lot of money. Dad has a point. You buy too many handbags.” “But darling, the handbags aren’t the point here!” “Aren’t they?” “Well, perhaps they are a bit. But even if I did stop buying handbags, we’d still go over the limit. Look – ever since I lost my job I’ve been looking for a new one. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time. But until then our income is depleted.” “So – stop buying handbags, Mum!” “It’s not that easy. The percentage of household income spent on handbags has been considerably exaggerated by your weaselly father. Far more important is the mortgage. If we stop the payments, we lose the house.” “But you’re not actually borrowing more money to pay the mortgage, are you?” “Actually, we are. We’re taking out loans and using credit cards to pay the mortgage. There are also the payments on the car, your school fees and the money we promised to send every month to Grandma. “And then there’s stuff like food and electricity – we haven’t promised anybody that we’ll spend that money but life would get pretty difficult if we didn’t. Without my salary, our spending is inevitably higher than our income.” “Wow. So Dad wants us to do something really drastic?” “Well – no, not really. He’s just using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip. We agreed all of this spending and set out the whole budget a few months ago.” “Was that before you lost your job?” “No, that was after.” “Mum, I’m confused. You and Dad knew what your income was going to be and you agreed all the spending. So, basically, you agreed spending that would guarantee that you’d break through the debt ceiling. So you’ve agreed to exceed the debt ceiling.” “Yes – we agreed to exceed the debt ceiling. But we haven’t agreed to raise it. That’s the problem.” “But that doesn’t make any sense!” “It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t make any sense. The point is he has bargaining power now. “The next mortgage payment is due on August 2; that’s also the same day we send money to Grandma. If he hasn’t specifically approved for us to go overdrawn on our joint account, we have to choose: Grandma doesn’t get paid, or we go hungry, or we skip the mortgage payment.” “But you have the overdraft limit?” “Oh yes. In fact we have the overdraft limit agreed with Mr Foss-Smythe. The same bank we have the mortgage with.” “And he’s happy to lend you the money?” “Delighted, darling.” “So he’ll be happy if you borrow money from your current account to pay the mortgage, but not if you just skip the mortgage.” “Exactly. He will be very unhappy. I’m surprised he’s not more nervous already.” “Perhaps he should be more nervous that you don’t have a job and that you and Dad are spending far more than you earn, than about some entirely arbitrary debt ceiling that the two of you can agree to waive at any moment?” “You may be right.” “Where is Dad, anyway?” “I think he’s buying himself a treat to relieve the stress.” http://timharford.com/2011/07/a-handbag-aw...r-debt-ceiling/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) They are meeting again right now though quite frankly I don't expect an agreement. I find it incredible that the Republicans can't see that default will automatically add hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to the debt, quite aside from forcing Obama to make choices between SS and Medicare payments, military salaries, paying bond holders and on and on. Sheer lunacy, all in the name of protecting rich people and corporations currently sitting on enormous mountains of cash. Edited July 23, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 They are meeting again right now though quite frankly I don't expect an agreement. I find it incredible that the Republicans can't see that default will automatically add hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to the debt, quite aside from forcing Obama to make choices between SS and Medicare payments, military salaries, paying bond holders and on and on. Sheer lunacy, all in the name of protecting rich people and corporations currently sitting on enormous mountains of cash. Why is this all the republicans fault? Our debt is increasing by over 4 billion per day. Nothing to do with spending and Obama huh??? Let's raise taxes and for corporations to bail him out while entitlements continue to kill us. Why don't all you liberals that keep talking about increasing taxes put your money where your mouth is - Let's get 10 of you liberals to pony up an extra 1,000 when you pay your 2011 taxes and I will kick in an extra 100. Deal? If not then shut up unless you are willing to put up your own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Why is this all the republicans fault? Our debt is increasing by over 4 billion per day. Nothing to do with spending and Obama huh??? Let's raise taxes and for corporations to bail him out while entitlements continue to kill us. it's the GOP's fault because Obama actually is willing to cut entitlements but the GOP refuses to increase taxes at all (even if the increase in taxes is just letting the Bush era tax cuts expire as they were voted to do back when they were first implemented and the GOP was perfectly willing to raise the debt ceiling under Reagan and George W. Bush, but now they are making a stand purely for political reasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 it's the GOP's fault because Obama actually is willing to cut entitlements but the GOP refuses to increase taxes at all (even if the increase in taxes is just letting the Bush era tax cuts expire as they were voted to do back when they were first implemented and the GOP was perfectly willing to raise the debt ceiling under Reagan and George W. Bush, but now they are making a stand purely for political reasons Thought they had a plan yesterday until Obama added 400 billion to revenues???? believe who you want but I am thinking Obama won't mind not having a deal - easy to blame on republicans and that is what Obama really wants - it is not about what is right - it is about obama wanting to win in 2012. A ton of republicans ran on not raising taxes and I for one am glad these guys are sticking to what they ran on - too bad they did not run on hope and change. It is just disgusting how much govt spends and wastes - not just Obama but all of govt - disgusting!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Raise taxes I say. There is nearly half the country right now not paying anything. Lets start with raising their tax burden. (And by this I mean federal taxes. I understand that when they buy cigarettes, booze, and gas that they pay the taxes on those amounts, but since it is often gifted money they have not earned that they are paying with I don't find the point worth discussing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 Raise taxes I say. There is nearly half the country right now not paying anything. Lets start with raising their tax burden. (And by this I mean federal taxes. I understand that when they buy cigarettes, booze, and gas that they pay the taxes on those amounts, but since it is often gifted money they have not earned that they are paying with I don't find the point worth discussing.) are you intentionally omitting payroll taxes from your rant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Raise taxes I say. There is nearly half the country right now not paying anything. Lets start with raising their tax burden. (And by this I mean federal taxes. I understand that when they buy cigarettes, booze, and gas that they pay the taxes on those amounts, but since it is often gifted money they have not earned that they are paying with I don't find the point worth discussing.) Come on now - according to the liberals on this site the people on assistance are all great people - nobody abuses the system and they are all well deserving of our money. There are people here that even think that these unemployed are spending most of the day using Iphones to write resumes and send them to potential employers. It is only fair to raise taxes on people who are rich - I mean why is it fair that they have money?? I mean if they have gone to college and made all the right decisions in life it is only right that they give it back to people who make bad decisions in life. There is no other way out of this mess and if you just give the poverty stricken people like 6-7 chances I am sure they will help turn this country around. I for one have worked hard and made the right decisions like buying a modest home and driving a car for many years so that I can try and save some hard earned money - it only makes sense that I should kick in a chunk more. This country needs to stop spending!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) President's who raised the debt ceiling and number of times. ￭ Dwight D. Eisenhower ®: 4￭ John F. Kennedy (D): 5 ￭ Lyndon B. Johnson (D): 7 ￭ Richard M. Nixon ®: 7 ￭ Gerald R. Ford ®: 6 ￭ Jimmy Carter (D): 6 ￭ Ronald Reagan ®: 17 ￭ George H. W. Bush ®: 5 ￭ Bill Clinton (D): 4 ￭ George W. Bush ®: 7 believe who you want but I am thinking Obama won't mind not having a deal - You are a diehard repub blinded by a radical ideology. Every economist worth his salt says we need to cut spending and bring in more revenue for a viable deficit reduction plan Obama is willing to make 4 trillion in cuts while cutting entitlement spending while simply having tax rates roll back to the Regan era. Never once, has one faction of one party made such an extreme stance in not raising the debt ceiling. The Senate is ready to make deal and the extremist's in the party are holding this up. If you truly believe Obama is purposely holding this up you simply aren't very educated on the issue. Perhaps you are just a diehard repub blinded by a radical ideology. It's one or the other. Edited July 23, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Outlays vs. Revenues Since 1930 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 What I find absolutely assinine about this whole issue is how republicans constantly beat the drum that any tax increases are "job killing" tax increases while spending cuts will seemingly have no negative effect on the economy. I'm sorry but if you remove trillions of dollars of economic activity (govt spending) out of the economy you are going to kill demand and kill jobs as well. Potato, potahto. Stop playing politics and acknowledge that all paths will be painful but are necessary. Cut spending and raise taxes. It's a horrible pill to swallow but it needs to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 President's who raised the debt ceiling and number of times. You are a diehard repub blinded by a radical ideology. Every economist worth his salt says we need to cut spending and bring in more revenue for a viable deficit reduction plan Obama is willing to make 4 trillion in cuts while cutting entitlement spending while simply having tax rates roll back to the Regan era. Never once, has one faction of one party made such an extreme stance in not raising the debt ceiling. The Senate is ready to make deal and the extremist's in the party are holding this up. If you truly believe Obama is purposely holding this up you simply aren't very educated on the issue. Perhaps you are just a diehard repub blinded by a radical ideology. It's one or the other. Why did he add 400 billion in revenues when a deal was basically done? I for one do believe he changed the numbers last minute - why? The repubs were willing to accept 800 billion in added revenue - it sounds like deal was broken off when that number all of the sudden became 1.2 billion. I am all for getting rid of loopholes in the tax code and it sounded like that was where they thought they could get the 800 billion but when that number was increased Boehner said that it would come from tax increases - hey I believe him. You can laugh at me for believing him but look in the mirror - you bought that whole hope and change thing. I am not sure of this answer but where are the details? When were these 4 trillion in cuts going to start taking effect? When would the tax increase start? I don't claim to be smart and all knowing - I just know one thing - I am sick and tired of paying in more and more when you see people who do not pay in more seem to get more. I am just disgusted by the way I see our country going. That is not a right or left comment and I admit that Bush had a ton to do with it but you are blind if you can't admit that Obama has done very little to control it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Why did he add 400 billion in revenues when a deal was basically done? I for one do believe he changed the numbers last minute - why? Not exactly sure what you are speaking of, but the 400 billion in revenue increases I've read about has always simply been the tax increase part of the deal. My guess is that you are listening to someone or reading something that has effectively convinced you that Obama was trying to change something last minute. I'm almost certain the 400 billion is the tax increase the extremists don't want to see a penny of, a major part of the compromise, not something Obama threw in when the "deal was basically done." Here is a quote from an article almost a month old. A bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They'd already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion -- so, 17 percent -- of the package be tax increases. And that's when Republicans walked. Specifically, the Obama administration was looking at a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy. It's almost not worth going into the details on those particular tax changes because the Republican position has held that the details don't matter: well-designed tax increases won't be looked at any more favorably than poorly designed tax increases. The point, Republicans say, is that there can't be any tax increases, full stop. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-k...mgxoH_blog.html There is a bi-partisan deal on the table which increases revenue and cuts spending. It's one faction of one party holding it up that doesn't even want to see tax loopholes killed. Plain and simple. Edited July 23, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Not exactly sure what you are speaking of, but the 400 billion in revenue increases I've read about has always simply been the tax increase part of the deal. My guess is that you are listening to someone or reading something that has effectively convinced you that Obama was trying to change something last minute. I'm almost certain the 400 billion is the tax increase the extremists don't want, a major part of the compromise, not something Obama threw in when the deal was almost done. Here is a quote from an article almost a month old. [/b] How do you not know what I am talking about? The person I was listening to was BOEHNER himself yesterday. He is claiming the "goalposts" have changed and 400 billion was added last minute. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/b...goal-posts.html That is what I am talking about. I am just wondering why it was changed last minute when there basically was a deal??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Not exactly sure what you are speaking of, but the 400 billion in revenue increases I've read about has always simply been the tax increase part of the deal. My guess is that you are listening to someone or reading something that has effectively convinced you that Obama was trying to change something last minute. I'm almost certain the 400 billion is the tax increase the extremists don't want, a major part of the compromise, not something Obama threw in when the "deal was basically done." Here is a quote from an article almost a month old. [/b] There is a bi-partisan deal on the table which increases revenue and cuts spending. It's one faction of one party holding it up. Plain and simple. Yes it does sound like a deal was on the table that had all you mentioned until someone changed the deal last minute - I for one do believe that it was changed last minute - not really because I trust Boehner - I just don't trust anything out of Obama's mouth anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Yes it does sound like a deal was on the table that had all you mentioned until someone changed the deal last minute When did the house give the indication they were willing to pass the gang of six deal? And as you posted, there does seem to be some finagling going on over revenues, but I was never under the impression the house was going to pass the bi-partisan bill as is. Edited July 23, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I don't claim to be smart and all knowing - I just know one thing - I am sick and tired of paying in more and more when you see people who do not pay in more seem to get more. I am just disgusted by the way I see our country going. That is not a right or left comment and I admit that Bush had a ton to do with it but you are blind if you can't admit that Obama has done very little to control it. It is hardly surprising that you don't claim to be smart, you'd be lying. How can you say you've paid in more and more when you haven't, unless your income has gone up? Bottom line - if August 3rd rolls around without a hike in the debt ceiling, the United States of America will default on it's debts and due payments. Pick from military salaries, SS payments to people whose only source of income that is, bondholders both domestic and foreign, Medicare doctors and on and on. Go on - pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Stop playing politics and acknowledge that all paths will be painful but are necessary. Cut spending and raise taxes. It's a horrible pill to swallow but it needs to be done. This +1 [Highfalutin Attitude] As you all know I am very jaded with the whole liberal/conservative - democrat/republican back and forth with each blaming the other. It is all so boring now. BOTH parties are to blame, BOTH parties are stomping their feet like a 3-year told they have to go to bed, BOTH conservative and liberal minded individuals point the fingers at each other, BOTH conservative and liberal minded people thinks the others fundamental views are wrong, BOTH sides of congress keep attacking each other like 13 year old girls spreading rumors about each other all because of a boy they both like. - No one, not even the rich corporate CEOs of this county want to see people suffer - We as a country were so self absorbed that the rest of the world made trillions off of our borrowing all the while laughing at how blinded and arrogant we were that we could sustain our lifestyles - We got ourselves into this mess - We have no one else to blame but ourselves - Morally, if you are able to help others less fortunate then you should at least contemplate it - No one should be forced into helping others less fortunate - Each President in the last 40 years has done something that has improved our country - Each President in the last 40 years has done something that has hurt our country - We are in a lose/lose situation right now - In a lose/lose situation, always choose the lesser of two evils - America needs another Age of Enlightenment level movement to change our core fundamental beliefs on how to live (as in locally and within financial means) - We hemorrhage trillions of dollars in political attack ads and wasted time in legislation - We need to open our eyes to the trillions and trillions of dollars that fund our blackops domestic intelligence programs which are so compartmentalized that I am confident there is major overlap and duplication (google Fusion centers) - Liberals suck - Conservatives suck - Democrats suck - Republicans suck - People who complain about the class 'warfare' in this country should be down on their knees licking the Statue of Liberty's cooch in thanks and praise - go to India and its stratification cast system or North Korean, Cambodia, Venezuelan, Cuba, China, Russia, Vietnam, Loas, any country in Africa and then come back home and tell me what you think. Bushwacked's comment, " You are a diehard repub blinded by a radical ideology" is a prime example of what I despise the most. And, for the record I am not attacking you here, Bushy-pooh, I'm using your line to make a point. Go back through each political thread we have on this board and you will clearly see the same line, reworded from both liberal and conservative minded people on this board (I am just as guilty). Do you know what this is called? Ad Hominem (translates "against the man"). Attack the person rather than deal with the issue. Stop wasting time posting and arguing over crap you have no control over right now and go out and do something about it. And you know how do you start to do something about it? Locally. You know who I wish we could plug in as a mediator right now to help stop this slow motion train wreck? James Lee Witt. Read up on him and you will see why. I admire that guy. [/Highfalutin Attitude] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 The point is he has bargaining power now. yup, and he's using it to force the household to reform their spending habits just a little bit more than they've been willing to thus far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 yup, and he's using it to force the household to reform their spending habits just a little bit more than they've been willing to thus far. At the risk of foreclosure. How wonderful to win the argument when you're living in a cardboard box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Outlays vs. Revenues Since 1930 that is true (revenues are down, below 15% of GDP). that is not because "taxes are too low", but because the economy sucks. the CBO and everyone else projects that under the current tax code, revenues will be back where they've been historically, above 18% of GDP in the next several years. problem is, they also project spending under current law to be over 25% of GDP, way higher than it's been since WWII, out indefinitely into the future. the hardliners in the GOP are saying no, 18-20% of revenue should be enough, the problem is the spending. I mostly agree with that, but there are demographic realities that need to be taken into consideration (all the baby boomers coming down the pike wanting their sugar). and if doing away with some of the stupider spending in the tax code gets you closer to around 20% of GDP on the spending side, then I think ultimately that is a no-brainer. what I'd ultimately like to see is a more sweeping tax reform along the lines of what was proposed by the president's own bipartisan deficit commission -- where all kinds of loopholes are closed, and overall rates lowered, with the general target of increasing revenues to right around 20% of GDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Trump was awesome the other day "The people that are supposed to be doin this job are idiots" friggin tell everyone in washington ta go home, we're startin over and they're losers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 what I'd ultimately like to see is a more sweeping tax reform along the lines of what was proposed by the president's own bipartisan deficit commission -- where all kinds of loopholes are closed, and overall rates lowered, with the general target of increasing revenues to right around 20% of GDP. And there's your problem. You simply can't do that and stick to your pledge to the unelected Grover Norquist. Any increase in revenue is a hike to these buffoons. Only morans paint themselves into corners but these have. Would someone like to tell me how taxes are job killers when we have right now (with historically low tax rates) the highest unemployment for decades while during a period of higher taxes e.g. the 90s, we had virtual full employment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted July 23, 2011 Author Share Posted July 23, 2011 You simply can't do that and stick to your pledge to the unelected Grover Norquist. For the record, even crazy Grover Norquist realizes that things are scary... so much so that he basically came out a few days ago and said that not extending the Bush era tax-cuts would not actually be increasing taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 that is true (revenues are down, below 15% of GDP). that is not because "taxes are too low", but because the economy sucks. . You are smart enough to know the historically low taxes and sucky economy both play a role in the huge gap in the graph. Income-tax receipts are down sharply since the Bush tax cuts. In fiscal 2000, the year before the cuts began to take effect, receipts from the federal income tax on individuals amounted to 10.2 percent of GDP. That figure was down to 6.2 percent of GDP last year. Yea, that has nothing to do with the tax law whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.