Deal or default?

[SGOS]

They knew from the beginning that the likely hood of this working was slim, but proceeded with it it anyways in order to please their fruit-cake base. I think they were hoping that the democrats would simply cave in and meet their demands. Thing is, the democrats were tired of always being knows as "the party of compromise" and decided they themselves needed to prove something to their base... that they have balls.

I don't know what they knew or didn't know from the beginning, but it was politically necessary to show support for the Tea Baggers and test the waters.  While most people have a limit to the shit they can tolerate, the only way to find the Democrat's line in the sand was to give this thing a try.  In retrospect, it's easy to say that it was dopey, but the Democrats have a tradition of compromising, caving, and shooting themselves in the foot, often in ways that are surprisingly opposed to what they promise voters.

Republicans lost this time in a big way, and turned off a bunch of voters.  At least it might appear that way, but a recent headline points out that there may not be much serious electoral damage.  Their base is devoted, just as the Democrat's base is devoted.  Politicians can do a lot of stupid ass things, and their base will insist their leaders have given them the moon.  I'll guess that there's still going to be huge numbers of Republicans that will simply hate the Democrats all the more for making the Republican party losers in this battle.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And that is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about or of what Jason said. The debt limit mearly sets an upper limit on the total amount the US government can borrow. Once they reach that limit they can not by law borrow more money. But the government has annual revenue without borrowing. For physical year 2014 revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion. Interest on the debt for the year is going to be about $450 billion. That leaves more than $2.5 trillion after we pay the interest on the debt. We are going to spend about $1.75 trillion on social security, medicare and medicaid for the year. That leaves about $775 billion. If the federal government could live on $775 billion (DoD is going to get $675 billion) the debt limit would not mean a thing because we wouldn't need to borrow more money to meet our obligations.

But then you'd get fewer food inspectors to make sure you can eat safely, fewer NSA officers to make sure you can fly safely, fewer elementary teachers so you can learn science better, etc.

It is true that for the government to achieve the desirable goal of staying under the debt limit, some spending would have to be cut.  However, you are falling into the trap Obama has set (or are trying to set it yourself) of cutting in such a way as to make it as painful as possible for the people of the country.  After all, the administration has chosen to expend more money hiring guards to put up barricades than the lower sum of the ranger patrolling the open-air parks.

Even so, fewer food inspectors means the people will have to think for themselves and say "this meat over here looks and smells good, while that meat over there smells rotten and looks moldy.  I think I'll buy the better meat."  I know it is anathema to people like you, but there will be some personal responsibility involved for people to survive.

What you are pretending doesn't exist is that the debt has a second factor.  The debt ceiling is how much the government allows itself to go into debt, but that still assumes willing buyers for the debt.  What happens when the government runs out of those?

[Plu]

Even so, fewer food inspectors means the people will have to think for themselves and say "this meat over here looks and smells good, while that meat over there smells rotten and looks moldy. I think I'll buy the better meat." I know it is anathema to people like you, but there will be some personal responsibility involved for people to survive.

Personal responsibility vs a billion dollar industry intent on fucking you over to make as much money as possible is a fight you will not win. It would work if the worst you have to deal with is people selling rotten meat. But we've long gone beyond the point where the worst you can do to make money is selling rotten meat.

[Aroura33]

And that is either a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debt limit is about or of what Jason said. The debt limit mearly sets an upper limit on the total amount the US government can borrow. Once they reach that limit they can not by law borrow more money. But the government has annual revenue without borrowing. For physical year 2014 revenue is expected to be about $3 trillion. Interest on the debt for the year is going to be about $450 billion. That leaves more than $2.5 trillion after we pay the interest on the debt. We are going to spend about $1.75 trillion on social security, medicare and medicaid for the year. That leaves about $775 billion. If the federal government could live on $775 billion (DoD is going to get $675 billion) the debt limit would not mean a thing because we wouldn't need to borrow more money to meet our obligations.

But then you'd get fewer food inspectors to make sure you can eat safely, fewer NSA officers to make sure you can fly safely, fewer elementary teachers so you can learn science better, etc.

It is true that for the government to achieve the desirable goal of staying under the debt limit, some spending would have to be cut.  However, you are falling into the trap Obama has set (or are trying to set it yourself) of cutting in such a way as to make it as painful as possible for the people of the country.  After all, the administration has chosen to expend more money hiring guards to put up barricades than the lower sum of the ranger patrolling the open-air parks.

Even so, fewer food inspectors means the people will have to think for themselves and say "this meat over here looks and smells good, while that meat over there smells rotten and looks moldy.  I think I'll buy the better meat."  I know it is anathema to people like you, but there will be some personal responsibility involved for people to survive.

What you are pretending doesn't exist is that the debt has a second factor.  The debt ceiling is how much the government allows itself to go into debt, but that still assumes willing buyers for the debt.  What happens when the government runs out of those?

If only deadly meat always looked and/smelled bad in some way. Sadly, many parasites and deadly bacteria are undetectable by the human eye and nose. How many fewer deaths are there to food poisoning than 100 or 200 years ago?

[Plu]

Actually I wouldn't even be so scared about companies selling bad meat. It's actually in their interest to sell good meat otherwise they kill their own consumerbase. I'd be much more scared of companies adding addictive chemicals to their food to make sure you keep buying it.

[entropy]

Increasing taxes also works toward decreasing debt. Some people do not want to raise taxes - I get that and they  certainly are entitled to that opinion - but too many people seem to fall into thinking that the ONLY way to decrease the deficit is to cut spending. Ain't so.

Taxes have been the real hangup in getting a resolution to the long term debt problem. Since 2011 Obama has said that he would be willing to negotiate reductions in spending for Medicare and Social Security to get long term debt more in line with what is manageable if the Republicans would be willing to increase taxes primarily on the wealthy to also help with long term debt. If I remember correctly, Obama offered $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. He would probably settle for $3 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. That deal has been available to the Republicans for two years, but the Republicans don't want to negotiate about increasing taxes. That's why we ended up with the Supercommittee and why the Supercommittee didn't work and why we ended up with sequestration - which is all cuts to spending (the problem Republicans have with the sequestration is that it cuts things they don't want cut). Until the Republicans are willing to accept some tax increases to go along with spending cuts to Medicare and Social Security we are going to be perpetually stuck in our efforts to come to a genuine compromise that gets long term deficits where they should be.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually I wouldn't even be so scared about companies selling bad meat. It's actually in their interest to sell good meat otherwise they kill their own consumerbase. I'd be much more scared of companies adding addictive chemicals to their food to make sure you keep buying it.

But if people say "this vendor sells quality goods and that vendor sells tainted goods" that still leaves those who despise personal responsibility unable to choose between vendors.  Actually it doesn't, they imagine everyone around them to be incompetent, and in need of their own enlightened leadership, as they are the great exception.

[Plu]

If people say those things, there is no real reason to believe them. They're probably being paid by the company they claim sells quality goods. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get the kind of reach to inform enough people.

Not that a government inspection is any kind of guaruantee, but at least it's a step towards a bit of safety. Personal responsibility is nice, but nobody has enough time or knowledge to remain informed about enough stuff that I'd trust it to be enough without any kind of devoted group of somewhat trustworthy people keeping an eye on things.

There is too much information in the world, and too many people willing to screw you over, to be able to figure everything out on your own.

Also I don't despise personal responsibility, I just don't buy that anyone has enough of it to not need any kind of watchdog group to keep an eye on companies. I could take all the personal responsibility I can muster, and I'd still be buttraped by any unsupervised company on a daily basis because I simply don't have the time or means to put their stuff to the kind of tests required to ensure that it's not secretly really bad for me.

[josephpalazzo]

The GOP's temper tantrum cost $24B to the economy. Sixteen days ago they could have had exactly the same deal at no cost whatsoever. I'll bet anything that the great American people will vote them right back into power. As the song goes, "When will we ever learn?"

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If people say those things, there is no real reason to believe them. They're probably being paid by the company they claim sells quality goods.

Actually I was thinking of a prospective purchaser saying that to himself, right before deciding which product to choose.

[Plu]

If people say those things, there is no real reason to believe them. They're probably being paid by the company they claim sells quality goods.

Actually I was thinking of a prospective purchaser saying that to himself, right before deciding which product to choose.

Ah ok. I wasn't entirely sure what you meant.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Heh... My comments about sedition charges? Change.org has a petition to charge rubes who lead this fiasco with sedition.. How proper even if it goes nowhere..
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4116820/
Oops..it's from moveon.org...my bad..

[Colanth]

If people say those things, there is no real reason to believe them. They're probably being paid by the company they claim sells quality goods.

Actually I was thinking of a prospective purchaser saying that to himself, right before deciding which product to choose.

So if the dairy farmer has cows that are infected with tuberculosis and sells their milk anyway (that was one of the big reasons for food inspection), how are you, the consumer, going to know?  Are you going to carry a lab with you every time you buy a container of milk?  Ask Mermaid how easy it is for Joe Consumer to detect TB in milk.

And there are many other things the government prevents, that the consumer couldn't even begin to think of detecting.  How easy would it be for the lab producing flu vaccine to just put live virus into the vials.  Save a bunch of money.  As long as the Koch brothers weren't victims, no one would do anything about it.  Your kids died from the flu - after getting shots?  Hey, getting a shot isn't a guarantee that you won't get sick.  (Especially if the shot is live unweakened virus.)

But thinking otherwise is lacking responsibility, huh?