Raising the debt ceiling

[Gordon Gray]

Hi all,

In case some of you haven't realized this and many probably have not since I've never stated it clearly, I start new threads like this in an attempt to expand my knowledge of current events. My motive is not to start a p**ing match.

I find the posts by autoformer, Rich, and others to be truly enlightening because I gain a better (and hopefully a more balanced) perspective on complex issues. It also allows me, in the end, to be a better informed person and to expand my understanding and comprehension of controversial issues within the context of the real world.

GG

PS: Just wanted to touch on one point in Auto's excellent post above. Has anyone ever thought that if we had chosen not to go to war with Iraq in 1992, the current Arab Spring movement would have taken care of our Suddam Hussein problem?

 

[Len44]

Well excuse the hell out of me Rep.

By the way, that is a very intelligent post. Shows that you are a truly deep thinker.

GG

Right with you, Gordon. But we gotta be careful, because, as they say, "Sarcasm is lost on children." :devil:

PS: And if you do have something of substance to add other than your inane comment that we are all stupid (except you of course), please do.

As Dave has said on many occasions, if you don't like the discussion, you can ignore it.

That's why this section is called "OFF TOPIC".

Exactly!

 

[autoformer]

Thanks, Gordon. I think we would have been better off all around if we'd just left Saddam alone. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but he was a secular dictator - a natural enemy of religious extremists if only because they would have threatened his absolute power. Whether he would have been ousted by the Arab Spring is anyone's guess. I wonder what impact the invasion of Iraq had on the Arab Spring. Could the invasion have somehow precipitated the Arab Spring or was it inevitable in any case? It's an interesting topic for thought and discussion.

I'd like to think the Arab Spring is helping the cause for freedom around the world by dramatically illustrating what happens to rulers who ignore the will of their people. For example, it's good to see that Myanmar is making progress toward free elections at last. The military government seems to have figured out they can choose whether history will remember them as brutal dictators or as the people who set Myanmar on the path to democracy. Let's hope the upcoming elections, which will include Aung San Suu Kyi's party, are run fairly. Having visited Burma several times, I have high hopes for the future of the long-sufering people there.

PS: Just wanted to touch on one point in Auto's excellent post above. Has anyone ever thought that if we had chosen not to go to war with Iraq in 1992, the current Arab Spring movement would have taken care of our Suddam Hussein problem?

 

[Gordon Gray]

I agree that my "what if" comment regarding Iraq is Monday Morning Quarterbacking stuff but .......................

Hopefully Ms. Clinton's pending visit to Burma on December 1 will have a positive impact on the political environment. First visit by a USA official in 50 years.

GG

 

[jmschnur]

My wife and daughter were in Bagan, Mandalay, Yangon, and Inle Lake about 10 years ago as independent travelers. The people were very very nice. We had a number of wonderful experiences. However there was always the sense of oppression. Evenings in hagan we're actually a bit scary.

I hope this is real but I have many worries.

 

[repman]

Well excuse the hell out of me Rep.

By the way, that is a very intelligent post. Shows that you are a truly deep thinker.

GG

PS: And if you do have something of substance to add other than your inane comment that we are all stupid (except you of course), please do.

As Dave has said on many occasions, if you don't like the discussion, you can ignore it.

That's why this section is called "OFF TOPIC".

Gordon ease up it was meant as a light hearted comment , We all know where these Intelligent :ROFL: conversations go. Somebody says something contrary to the liberal ideology of you and your minions and its lets just blame the DEVIL = Republicans , George Bush , Fox News, Capitalists , Etc. , Etc.

I am part of the OCCUPY OFF TOPIC section we dont know what we want or how to express ourselves we just add Inane comments whenever a mike is thrown in our face!

 

[GaryG]

That's their holy mantra. Check out this video...

So you all thought this engineer brought home a great point did you? He claims that the lowest ever unemployment in America was in 1953, May of 1953 to be exact, when the unemployment was 2.5%. This is false. The unemployment rate for the 1944 was 1.2%. He claims a correlation between the max tax rate in 1953 of 92% and the low unemployment rate. Clearly this "engineer" has not studied history. 1944 was the height of WWII and 1953 was the height of the Korean war. You actually don't even need to know history to know that he has a non sequitur argrument. But the interviewer and the enterviewee seem so self rightous. This same type of argument can be used to say Bush was almost twice as good as Obama since his 5.5% unemployment rate was almost half of Obama's 9%.

How good do you think this "engineer" would look to a skilled job interviewer? And they wonder why he can't find full time employment.

regards,
Gary

 

[slowGEEZR]

Gary, I can see where he got his information. The Bureau of Labor Statistics database website only shows unemployment rates back to 1948. By looking at the tables on their website, he was accurate. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The Bureau notes that labor statistics and unemployment rates prior to 1948 include 14 and 15 year olds, while 1948 to current begin with 16 year olds, so to compare apples to apples, one cannot compare rates that include different age groups.

You are correct that the Korean war was in full swing in 1953 and that may account for some of the unemployment figures, but look at the unemployment rates during the Vietnam war and it seems that wartime does not necessarily mean low unemployment rates. His chart is accurate. How one interprets the numbers is something else, but he makes a strong case and is far from a non sequitur argument.

As far as the self righteousness, I think a lot of us are sick and tired of the current do nothing, stonewalling, get Obama out at any cost to the American people, of this republican congress and the inability of the current democratic side to work around them.

 

[Rich]

Gordon ease up it was meant as a light hearted comment

No it wasn't. It was meant as a direct personal insult, calling into question the intelligence of those with whom you disagree politically, for no other reason than that you disagree with them. You are apparently incapable of having an intelligent conversation discussing the ISSUES without resorting to personal insults, because you do it in every political thread on this forum. Instead of addressing the substance of the issues discussed, you just throw out personal insults toward the people you disagree with. Why you haven't been banned for this behavior is beyond me. Discuss the issues or ignore the threads, I don't care which. But you need to stop with the personal insults. It is behavior like that which ruins this forum for everyone.

 

[Rich]

Hi Rich,
Of course, I agree that we must have some regulation, particularly in the financial sector. We just have to be smart about it. I hope you agree, however, that too much drives business away.

I do agree that there is a fine line which we must constantly walk between reasonable regulation to protect the public safety and well-being, vs. unreasonable regulations which present onerous burdens on business and restrict economic activity. These waters are further muddied by the dysfunction in our legislature, with the overwhelming amount of greed and lobbying on both sides resulting in little in the way of reasonable and useful regulation being passed, resulting in a confusing and inefficient regulatory system.

The point is, whether you think that the government taking over 60% of your hard-earned money is reasonable. I don't.

I think it is reasonable for corporations to pay tax on their profits. I think it is reasonable for executives at those corporations to pay income tax on their salaries. And I think it is reasonable for owners to pay a capital gains tax on their gains from selling those businesses when they sell them for a profit. I guess we can and will always argue about exactly what each of those rates should be, but I fail to see how that is an unreasonable tax structure.

I agree with you that the previous administration's policies were a disaster. But I doubt that tax cuts were nearly as much of a problem as the 2 wars we started in the wake of 9/11.

I agree. I believe the biggest problem was that we tried to do both at the same time (two wars and a big tax cut) and that the current Congress refuses to see that you can't run a deficit this big and continue to keep tax rates low and somehow expect to balance the budget.

 

[repman]

No it wasn't. It was meant as a direct personal insult, calling into question the intelligence of those with whom you disagree politically, for no other reason than that you disagree with them. You are apparently incapable of having an intelligent conversation discussing the ISSUES without resorting to personal insults, because you do it in every political thread on this forum. Instead of addressing the substance of the issues discussed, you just throw out personal insults toward the people you disagree with. Why you haven't been banned for this behavior is beyond me. Discuss the issues or ignore the threads, I don't care which. But you need to stop with the personal insults. It is behavior like that which ruins this forum for everyone.

Minion #1 chimes in, Rich I didn't know that your skills included mind reading. You are one very talented individual to determine ones intent. I actually did not make any personal attack on any particular person, I was generalizing. I am entitled to my opinion on an off topic thread as much as you are. If you look to have people banned for an opinion you would be high on that list.

Is your name Rich or McCarthy!

The last time I checked Dave is the moderator here if he thinks I am out of line I will gladly submit.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rep,

As I stated in a previous post, my motive is to learn, fact check, and understand other perspectives. It is not meant to "blame" anyone per se.

Having said that, it is difficult to ignore polls that clearly indicate that a large majority of Americans support repeal of the Bush tax cuts within the context of a "balanced" approach to reduce our national debt. The other side being a responsible reduction in our national spending.

It's difficult to ignore the current state of our economy and people like Norquist et al who lobby (successfully so far) for grid lock and government disfunctionality. And openly applaud the fact when it occurs and does so within the guise of "responsible long term" policy.

It's difficult to ignore Mitch McConnell's (one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress) statement that his NUMBER ONE GOAL is to do everything he can do to make sure that Obama is a one term president. Not job creation, not economic recovery, not reduction of national debt, which are the the major issues that concern Americans.

Also, I had previously stated, and I believe it is fact, that the vast majority of economists agree that the last thing we should do at this time is to cut spending and intentionally "shrink" the economy, with the requisite negative impact to our current anemic economic situation.

If you disagree with these representations, so be it. I'd love to hear your reasons as to why you believe otherwise. But to me, this is very scary stuff and warrants serious discussion.

GG

 

[Rich]

I actually did not make any personal attack on any particular person, I was generalizing. I am entitled to my opinion on an off topic thread as much as you are.

You are entitled to an opinion on the topic being discussed in the thread. You are not entitled to insult others and then try to cloak that as "just voicing an opinion." You stated:

Maybe you all ought to stick to Audio discussion , at least its something you all know how to discuss with intelligence.

The direct insinuation is that none of the people discussing the actual topic in this thread had the intelligence to do so. That is a direct personal insult to everyone that was trying to have a reasonable discussion about the topic Gordon posted. You provided nothing else. No actual discussion of the topic whatsoever. You just threw a personal insult bomb in the thread to try to derail it. That is known as trolling, and I really don't expect the moderators are going to put up with much more of that type of behavior. I certainly hope they don't. If you can't engage in a reasonable discussion of the issues raised in the thread, then stay out of it! Simple as that.

 

[GaryG]

Gary, I can see where he got his information. The Bureau of Labor Statistics database website only shows unemployment rates back to 1948. By looking at the tables on their website, he was accurate. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

The Bureau notes that labor statistics and unemployment rates prior to 1948 include 14 and 15 year olds, while 1948 to current begin with 16 year olds, so to compare apples to apples, one cannot compare rates that include different age groups.

You are correct that the Korean war was in full swing in 1953 and that may account for some of the unemployment figures, but look at the unemployment rates during the Vietnam war and it seems that wartime does not necessarily mean low unemployment rates. His chart is accurate. How one interprets the numbers is something else, but he makes a strong case and is far from a non sequitur argument.

As far as the self righteousness, I think a lot of us are sick and tired of the current do nothing, stonewalling, get Obama out at any cost to the American people, of this republican congress and the inability of the current democratic side to work around them.

When I was referring to his statement being false I was specifically referring to "the lowest ever unemployment in America was in 1953". For pre-1948 unemployment data check here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
I would guess that the addition of 14 and 15 year olds prior to the 1948 would not skew the data by a truly significant amount and any skew would probably make the unemployment number larger as the 14 year olds would probably have a higher percentage of unemployed. My point in bringing the 1944 date into play was more to emphasize the importance on a large scale war on unemployment. His case in neither strong nor logical. He picks two data points and then draws far reaching conclusions. Such as, the tax rate was so high that they (the rich) put people to work growing the company instead of giving their money to the government. There are so many moving parts here that I don't have the time nor inclination to nail them all down but let me put out a couple of quick thoughts. In 1953 the corporate tax rate was 52%. The jobs were dominated by large corportations. And at that time "Mom and Pop" pretty much meant Mom and Pop. The list of the richest Americans changed quite slowly and was dominated by "old" money and names such as Vanderbilt and Rockerfeller. And it was far more likely that the rich individuals put their money in places like stock or ownership in those large corporations or tax free muni's where the yield was over 2%. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was either still regrouping from WWII or were third world nations. In other words our competition was weak. Now the marginal corporate tax rate in China is 25% and the capital gains tax is zero. They have a solid workforce and reasonable rule of law. Again, there are certainly issues such as long term stability of the government in China but now money has options. Capital has wings and if we,the American government, try skim off too much of the profit, the money will fly away.

PS: If you want carry on respectful discussion I will participate but I have no use for the "Those mean Repulicans" stuff. It's as simple as this, the Bush tax cuts were implemented with an expiration date. But for what ever reason (I claim political) president Obama decided to sign an extension. Without Obama's signature we would be at the Clinton rates. Before the last election the Dem's had the house and a super majority in the senate and yet they left no budget in place etc... You want the Dem's to work "around" the Republicans but I and people like me put those Republicans in place to stop what we believe is insane spending. What you call grid-lock I call democracy.

Regards,
Gary

 

[repman]

Hi Rep,

As I stated in a previous post, my motive is to learn, fact check, and understand other perspectives. It is not meant to "blame" anyone per se.

Having said that, it is difficult to ignore polls that clearly indicate that a large majority of Americans support repeal of the Bush tax cuts within the context of a "balanced" approach to reduce our national debt. The other side being a responsible reduction in our national spending.

It's difficult to ignore the current state of our economy and people like Norquist et al who lobby (successfully so far) for grid lock and government disfunctionality. And openly applaud the fact when it occurs and does so within the guise of "responsible long term" policy.

It's difficult to ignore Mitch McConnell's (one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress) statement that his NUMBER ONE GOAL is to do everything he can do to make sure that Obama is a one term president. Not job creation, not economic recovery, not reduction of national debt, which are the the major issues that concern Americans.

Also, I had previously stated, and I believe it is fact, that the vast majority of economists agree that the last thing we should do at this time is to cut spending and intentionally "shrink" the economy, with the requisite negative impact to our current anemic economic situation.

If you disagree with these representations, so be it. I'd love to hear your reasons as to why you believe otherwise. But to me, this is very scary stuff and warrants serious discussion.

GG

Gordon , I really hate these kinds of debates because you have your opinion and I have mine and at both of our ages its most likely not about to change any time soon.

I think we can agree that the people we have representing us on both sides are clearly not the best or the brightest for the job. I do not think they have a clue and from what it looks like the rest of the leaders around the world are in the same boat with new economic catastrophes happening every day someplace around the globe.

I would be all for paying more taxes if they would actually use it to spend down the debt and help the economy. Do you see that happening really?

I think we are in a free fall we are moving toward socialism and the rest of the world is proving that it can not sustain such activity and moving away it.

What happened to the super committee? Did the president work with that group to get something done? Its all a charade.

I think there should be term limits for the senate and house and get some fresh blood in there every few years. In my opinion that is what would really make a difference. That is a cause and protest I could get behind.

Until we get these old grizzled politicians out I am afraid things will remain as is on both sides of the aisle. Maybe if they didn't worry about getting re elected they would make the right decisions for the country and not thier re election efforts.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rep,

Thanks for your response and I do understand and respect your perspective.

I totally agree with your position on politicians and getting re-elected. If we were to get a Constitutional amendment for term limits on Congress, that would solve a myriad of issues, one being limitation of the type of power Norquist and other lobby groups have over members of Congress. This, of course, will never happen.

The second thing, which you may agree with, is limiting any campaigning to two months before any election. Also an impossibility.

In closing I, with all due respect, believe that all of the things I've stated above (absent my position on what all economists think should be done) are facts, not opinions.

McConnell said that, Norquist did that, and the poll results regarding repealing the Bush tax cuts are documented.

Be well. We'll see what the voters say next November.

Gordon

 

[Len44]

PS: If you want carry on respectful discussion I will participate but I have no use for the "Those mean Repulicans" stuff. It's as simple as this, the Bush tax cuts were implemented with an expiration date. But for what ever reason (I claim political) president Obama decided to sign an extension. Without Obama's signature we would be at the Clinton rates. Before the last election the Dem's had the house and a super majority in the senate and yet they left no budget in place etc... You want the Dem's to work "around" the Republicans but I and people like me put those Republicans in place to stop what we believe is insane spending. What you call grid-lock I call democracy.

Regards,
Gary

Can't handle letting you skate away with those kind of remarks. The Bush tax cuts -- designed to benefit his crazy-rich buddies at the expense of other taxpayers and the American People -- were oh so slyly designed to get passed with an expiration date to slide this awful legislation past everyone. WOW! A tax cut! Yippee! Uh, note that there was NO CONCERN about the deficit whatsoever so long as Bush was President, or paying for this tax cut, as now demanded by McConnell / Cantor for every Democratic proposal. But now that a Democrat is in the White House, why, by golly, every jerk right-wing extremist is screaming to high Heaven that the world is coming to an end, as Presidents Bush and Obama took action (Bush, belatedly) to mitigate the awful financial mess that Bush/Cheney created.

Then, President Obama, seeking to find some middle ground COMPROMISED with the Republicans, who somehow turned logic on its head by demanding this extension, shrieking that allowing the Bush Tax cuts to expire would in fact [to them -- and ONLY them] be a Tax increase! So, the Republicans got their way, and once again protected the millionaires.

You statement that "Before the last election the Dem's had the house and a super majority in the senate..." is just another inaccurate comment that right-wingers love to perpetuate with absolutely no relation to accuracy. It has even got so far out of hand that recently Rush and his ugly ilk are saying -- even now -- that "the Democrats control the Senate." I am really, really sick and tired of those who spout off not knowing what the heck they're talking about.

Now, if YOU want to have a respectful discussion here, that's fine. But it would be nice if accuracy could be employed when commenting rather than just showing hatred for the President of the United States. Remember when Bush was President? If anyone dared to offer criticism -- no matter how mild -- why, according to Rush & Hannity, they were disloyal Americans. What a bunch of crap that was!

I sincerely hope that every single one of those Republicans "you and others like you put in place" become unemployed after the next election. Maybe then they will be able to stop genuflecting to their God -- Grover Norquist! All they seem to care about is "getting" President Obama, even if that means putting this Country down the tubes.

Dang it -- times are hard! So hard, I heard that Exxon/Mobile had to lay off 25 Congressmen! :devil:

 

[Rich]

If you want carry on respectful discussion I will participate but I have no use for the "Those mean Repulicans" stuff. It's as simple as this, the Bush tax cuts were implemented with an expiration date. But for what ever reason (I claim political) president Obama decided to sign an extension. Without Obama's signature we would be at the Clinton rates. Before the last election the Dem's had the house and a super majority in the senate and yet they left no budget in place etc... You want the Dem's to work "around" the Republicans but I and people like me put those Republicans in place to stop what we believe is insane spending. What you call grid-lock I call democracy.

Totally agree with you re: the Bush tax cuts, Gary. The dems had their chance to push through a budget and punted. And Obama had the ability to use the extension of the Bush tax cuts as leverage in the debate to extend the debt ceiling, but he totally caved on that and punted until after the election. The dems seem to have no stomach for the hardball tactics the republicans are willing to engage in. And little political will to take a tough stance.

Gordon , I really hate these kinds of debates because you have your opinion and I have mine and at both of our ages its most likely not about to change any time soon.

Larry, it doesn't have to be all about changing the other person's mind, or even about shooting down their argument. By engaging in thoughtful debate, at least we can try to get the other person to understand our own perspective, even if they don't agree with it. We can learn from understanding the opposing perspective. And sometimes we may even find that we can agree on some things as well. Regardless, I do appreciate that you took the time to engage in some thoughtful discussion on the subject.

What happened to the super committee? Did the president work with that group to get something done? Its all a charade.

I think it was pretty clear that the President and the Democrats were willing to give some on the expenditure side of the equation, but it was equally clear that the republicans refused to yield an inch on the revenue side of the equation. If one side refuses to yield an inch in negotiations, how can you have compromise? Without compromise, how can any committee achieve anything?

I think there should be term limits for the senate and house and get some fresh blood in there every few years. In my opinion that is what would really make a difference. That is a cause and protest I could get behind.

Until we get these old grizzled politicians out I am afraid things will remain as is on both sides of the aisle. Maybe if they didn't worry about getting re elected they would make the right decisions for the country and not thier re election efforts.

I actually agree with you on the term limits issue. But I think that is only the first step. In order to have true reform of our political system, we have to find a way to limit lobbying and to get the influence of big money out of the picture. Until then, the highest dollar buys the vote.

 

[jmschnur]

I am intrigued with the comment that the US is marching towards socialism . In the 19th century there were plenty of times that the government stepped in. Antitrust laws were not enacted in the 21st century. The post office had its start as government enterprise a long time ago and only recently went semi private.

However I am not sure we know what the correct blend of regulations, taxation, and government partnerships make sense Iin this world of over 3 billion connected in milliseconds to each other. So a reasonable dialogue is to try to determine why government functions are necessary -e.g. Traffic lights, what we would like to have - perhaps public roads and subways, education, and then argue about what is best left to individuals; or not- for example health care.

However none of this leads to new ideas for jobs and ways to avoid NYC going under water in 50 years with out an expensive dike system.

But once we can agree on core functions of a central government perhaps we can have rational discussions of how to pay for it.

None of this says socialism is good or bad. I think that is a concept best left in the 19th century ( Owen, de Saint Simon, Webb, etc ). The systems in current Sweden, France, Brazil, etc seem to work fairly well but I would not call those systems the socialism that Sidney Webb had in mind.

 

[slowGEEZR]

When I was referring to his statement being false I was specifically referring to "the lowest ever unemployment in America was in 1953". For pre-1948 unemployment data check here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
I would guess that the addition of 14 and 15 year olds prior to the 1948 would not skew the data by a truly significant amount and any skew would probably make the unemployment number larger as the 14 year olds would probably have a higher percentage of unemployed. My point in bringing the 1944 date into play was more to emphasize the importance on a large scale war on unemployment. His case in neither strong nor logical. He picks two data points and then draws far reaching conclusions. Such as, the tax rate was so high that they (the rich) put people to work growing the company instead of giving their money to the government. There are so many moving parts here that I don't have the time nor inclination to nail them all down but let me put out a couple of quick thoughts. In 1953 the corporate tax rate was 52%. The jobs were dominated by large corportations. And at that time "Mom and Pop" pretty much meant Mom and Pop. The list of the richest Americans changed quite slowly and was dominated by "old" money and names such as Vanderbilt and Rockerfeller. And it was far more likely that the rich individuals put their money in places like stock or ownership in those large corporations or tax free muni's where the yield was over 2%. Meanwhile, the rest of the world was either still regrouping from WWII or were third world nations. In other words our competition was weak. Now the marginal corporate tax rate in China is 25% and the capital gains tax is zero. They have a solid workforce and reasonable rule of law. Again, there are certainly issues such as long term stability of the government in China but now money has options. Capital has wings and if we,the American government, try skim off too much of the profit, the money will fly away.

PS: If you want carry on respectful discussion I will participate but I have no use for the "Those mean Repulicans" stuff. It's as simple as this, the Bush tax cuts were implemented with an expiration date. But for what ever reason (I claim political) president Obama decided to sign an extension. Without Obama's signature we would be at the Clinton rates. Before the last election the Dem's had the house and a super majority in the senate and yet they left no budget in place etc... You want the Dem's to work "around" the Republicans but I and people like me put those Republicans in place to stop what we believe is insane spending. What you call grid-lock I call democracy.

Regards,
Gary

I saw the pre 1948 charts, but pointed out that using them would not be an 'apples to apples' comparison. Whether 14 and 15 year olds would skew the data much, I don't know, but in any case I clearly understand why he chose to use the 1953 figure. The conclusions he reached were just as plausible as any other conclusion I have seen. Whatever the conclusions he reached, the fact is and the numbers support it, the republican mantra that increased tax rates kill job creation isn't totally true.

As far as carrying on a respectful discussion, in what way have I been disrespectful? Stopping spending is one thing, failure to even try to compromise on any topic is not democracy in action; democracy needs compromise to function. Failure to compromise is what you get in a dictatorship.