Some Teaparty Terrorists

[OG Fire Beaster]

Interesting...

 

So the House approved A CR allowing DC to spend its own money but Reid wont act?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-gray-confronts-reid-on-capitol-steps-over-shutdowns-impact-on-city/2013/10/09/02577428-3103-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html

 

"The intraparty tension comes after the Republican-controlled House voted last week to pass a bill allowing the District to use its locally raised tax funds to maintain operations until Dec. 15. But Democrats, including Reid and President Obama, have held fast in opposition to piecemeal funding bills, saying Republicans must come to a deal to fund the entire government, not just favored segments."

[+Malamute]

In the past 10 years our debt has increased 5 fold. Our economy has not followed suit.

. Lower spending levels is not the same as lowering the deficit.

 

OG, I was just saying that comment there didn't jive.  Maybe you accidentally said deficit rather than debt as you did?

 

And also, our debt has not increased 5 fold in the last ten years.  That would put our debt at around 35 trillion. It is around 16 trillion currently.  The rampant spending of republicans in the naughts left Obama with a 11.2 trillion debt and a budget deficit of 1.2 trillion, a collapsing economy losing 750,000 jobs per month, a stock market crashing down to 6700, and financial institutions collapsing by the hundreds every month.  In a matter of a few years, the economy has recovered, added jobs for almost 4 years straight, reduced the deficit measurably, raised the stock market past 15,000(until the shutdown here), stabilized the financial markets and dropped unemployment by 3%. Etc etc.

 

The debt is currently around 16 trillion due to this catastrophe the republicans laid upon us from their inability to govern responsibly.  The deficit is scheduled to lower yearly for the next 7 years and should reach balanced by 2023.  It's a big ship that doesn't turn on a dime.  I mean hell, even Paul Ryans budget lowered the deficit less than Obamas budget would.  Btw, have you even read Obama's budget proposal? Hmmm,...

 

And as far as printing money,.... we print the same amount. The rest is digital and processed as loans to the banks which in turn is loaned to the public. Bonds act as securities for these loans. The public hold the vast majority of these bonds.  The government bond rates fail when the debt ceiling is reached and everyones 401k's, 403b's and investments will crash and rate of return will plummet due to ratings losses and risk factors.

 

 And printing money. The population of the united states was about 150 million in 1950. It is around 320million currently. If every single person in 1950 was able to have 1 printed dollar, that would mean that every single person in the US now could only have 47 cents if we did not print money to keep up with population growth and basic inflation. Basic inflation is part of a free market and is needed so people can make interest on investment. Otherwise a collapse of monetary policy will occur.  The debate is really about government bonds and how many is too many. The "discount window" so to speak. And generally speaking.

 

And yes , debt isn't always bad. this is due to inflation.  The US borrows money at such low rates(because we are the gold standard on monetary value) that when we borrow money from foreign governments, we delay repayment until inflation reaches a level that our repayment is usually around 75% of the actual dollar value borrowed when we print(bond).  It's a slick way of getting money for nothing in a generally speaking mode.

 

 And the debt limit would crush our economy and destroy our credit rating indeed.  There is no question about that. A trillion dollars of commerce destroyed overnight. *shrug*

[solabeirtan]

Seems like a good time for an epiphany moment from the wise one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjFI_70o4c

[+Malamute]

Interesting...

 

So the House approved A CR allowing DC to spend its own money but Reid wont act?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-gray-confronts-reid-on-capitol-steps-over-shutdowns-impact-on-city/2013/10/09/02577428-3103-11e3-89ae-16e186e117d8_story.html

 

"The intraparty tension comes after the Republican-controlled House voted last week to pass a bill allowing the District to use its locally raised tax funds to maintain operations until Dec. 15. But Democrats, including Reid and President Obama, have held fast in opposition to piecemeal funding bills, saying Republicans must come to a deal to fund the entire government, not just favored segments."

 

 

Well, understanding how D.C.(the city) is run,... you sadly have the republicans to blame again.  Thje insist on direct control over over D.c. within the federal government. If not, D.C. would be allowed voting representation within the House and Senate. Lastthing republicans want.  Every session democrats attempt to allow D.C. this right and it is shot down and blocked by republicans.  The house of rep's should not even be part of that issue and I agree, it is stupid.

[imiubu]

Seems like a good time for an epiphany moment from the wise one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjFI_70o4c

 

ah Frank... thank you Uncle Frank you were the 1st. to teach me the distinction bt misinformation & disinformation

(I was 17)

[+Malamute]

Moody's Investors Service warned yesterday that it would downgrade the United States' AAA credit rating if Congress didn't reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling in the "coming weeks." If that happens, interest rates could rise, which is not good news. Moody's also said yesterday it was eyeing Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo for potential downgrades as well, now that the Dodd-Frank bill indicates the government is no longer willing to prevent them from failing in a crisis.

 

As long as the banks get paid? Right?

 

Everyone else won't get paid(not everyone but huge numbers), but bugger, as long as moody's investors do,... who cares!

 

Economy crashes? Who cares. As long as enough money is coming in to pay the debt interest. heh

[OG Fire Beaster]

Mal

 

Yes. I stand corrected on some of those first two points.

 

I assumed you understood what I meant by printing money.... It is a term to describe how the fed operates.

 

I am not talking about physical bills in circulation. I am talking about debt held by the fed.

[+Malamute]

It's cool OG. Once ya responded,... I realized you meant debt not deficit. :-)

[+Malamute]

I assumed you understood what I meant by printing money.... It is a term to describe how the fed operates.

 

I am not talking about physical bills in circulation. I am talking about debt held by the fed.

 

 

 I know, but it is a horrible description and term to use to describe what is actually happening. :-)

 

It is a dumbing down of what it is and causes misunderstanding as to what is actually happening. I fully realize you yourself understand this, but I try not to use the lazy term because it just confuses people.

 

:-)

[OG Fire Beaster]

I think I have made my views clear enough.

 

Yours seem to be that we should push our responsibilities off on the backs of those under us. We must continue down this path of rapid government expansion, increasing spending levels and entitlements, blaming republicans, and only seeing the actions of those that do not agree with you as wrong.

 

I am on the opposite of almost all of that. I do blame republicans, as much as I blame all of our politicians.

 

I enjoyed the discussion. The debt will not go down and it is going to crush us until people start taking care of themselves and stop voting themselves money.

[+Malamute]

 And printing money. The population of the united states was about 150 million in 1950. It is around 320million currently. If every single person in 1950 was able to have 1 printed dollar, that would mean that every single person in the US now could only have 47 cents if we did not print money to keep up with population growth and basic inflation. Basic inflation is part of a free market and is needed so people can make interest on investment. Otherwise a collapse of monetary policy will occur.  The debate is really about government bonds and how many is too many. The "discount window" so to speak. And generally speaking.

 

And yes , debt isn't always bad. this is due to inflation.  The US borrows money at such low rates(because we are the gold standard on monetary value) that when we borrow money from foreign governments, we delay repayment until inflation reaches a level that our repayment is usually around 75% of the actual dollar value borrowed when we print(bond).  It's a slick way of getting money for nothing in a generally speaking mode.

 

 And the debt limit would crush our economy and destroy our credit rating indeed.  There is no question about that. A trillion dollars of commerce destroyed overnight. *shrug*

 

 

 I just need to fix up what I said a bit there and make a comparison.

 

 In a well regulated free enterprise system(what the U.S. is) inflation at proper rates is helpful. :-)

 

 Now, quite often I have this discussion with gold enthusiasts who tout the inflation of monetary policy.

 

 The only difference between inflation in monetary value and inflation in gold (or deflation for both), is that with gold, the mining companies control the rate of inflation, and with monetary policy, We the People(the fed) control the rate of inflation.  I would much much rather have it under the control of We the People than private barons.  I would also gladly discuss the whole 1913 issue, the Fed etc and how I also believe it is a problem; but that would be taking this topic way off base. :-)

[Celliach]

Thanks for keeping it civil guys!

[+Malamute]

I think I have made my views clear enough.

 

Yours seem to be that we should push our responsibilities off on the backs of those under us. We must continue down this path of rapid government expansion, increasing spending levels and entitlements, blaming republicans, and only seeing the actions of those that do not agree with you as wrong.

 

I am on the opposite of almost all of that. I do blame republicans, as much as I blame all of our politicians.

 

I enjoyed the discussion. The debt will not go down and it is going to crush us until people start taking care of themselves and stop voting themselves money.

 

 

 Now, see, that would be a bad assumption. I also agree we must fix spending levels, and we have been by greater margins than ever in history. It had just gotten that bad since Reagan decided to blow the wad on the cold war.(again, another topic). Not only have we been cutting by record amounts, we are doing it during a financial collapse, 2 wars and that has never been done in the history of the U.S.  I mean, if we had just instituted a 1% across the board "war tax" to expire when full debt repaid, we would be looking at 2.4 trillion less in "debt".  Republicans instead cut taxes and added an unfunded 1 trillion on top of that for the wealthy to receive tax breaks and middle class families. Obama agreed to keep those tax cuts(bush tax cuts) for middle class families while raising the taxes partially back up for those making over $250,000 a year thus lowering the deficit. (speaking of, since when does someone that makes 230,000 a year consider themselves middle class?) Also, Obama added another tax break during the stimulus bill that reduced taxes on everyone that makes a payroll check by 2% on all FICA taxes.  So most people I tell, "you are actually paying less federal tax now than under Bush, Clinton and H.W. Bush and Reagans last 3 years when he raised taxes on the poor and middle class".  That tax break applies to all income up to $108,000 ish a year. It raises up with the CPI(inflation).

 

 Interesting, but true. :-)

 

 

 Edit add: As far as spending levels to come back to the current topic of a funding bill,... both parties have agreed on the 986 billion figure that would continue to lower our deficit. It ismatter of HOW it is done. I fully believe that democrats have a more sensible and future looking plan that puts us at the 986 billion level. Republicans wish to gut SS, medicare and such while democrats take amore balanced approach.

 

:-)

[zaphod]

I think I have made my views clear enough.

 

Yours seem to be that we should push our responsibilities off on the backs of those under us. We must continue down this path of rapid government expansion, increasing spending levels and entitlements, blaming republicans, and only seeing the actions of those that do not agree with you as wrong.

 

I am on the opposite of almost all of that. I do blame republicans, as much as I blame all of our politicians.

 

I enjoyed the discussion. The debt will not go down and it is going to crush us until people start taking care of themselves and stop voting themselves money.

What we need to do is raise revenues if we wish to continue to grow as a country.  The 1993 tax hikes cost the Dems the 1994 election, but sure did a lot to balance the budget and actually start paying down the debt.  So who was it that screwed the pooch and gave away the surplus and brought back 30 year bonds.  Now those same folks want a higher interest rate and want to make sure they get paid first at the expense of seniors, vets, and the poor..

[OG Fire Beaster]

Zaphod

 

Yes we need to raise revenues, but not at the expense of individual discretionary income. Hopefully we can agree on that. Some interesting points though. It is also why I stated that we cant operate our spending budget based off of the projections made during the late 90's. Which is why we are here.

 

Mal

 

None of them are willing to control the fed, and the fed is definitely not "we the people". The whole game has to stop and the only way to stop it is to quit feeding it. The entire reason they want the debt raised is so they can issue some debt to the fed. Propping up the markets so that DC's friends can keep playing the game. It is getting real old. They are giving us theater and only making everyday people feel the pain. Both groups.

 

Ive got some combicoins, but Id rather have more frequently traded items than gold if infrastructure goes. Other wise bitcoins have proven pretty "safe".

 

Interesting discussion. Thanks for sticking it out and keeping it cool.

[+Malamute]

Well, "we the people" control the Fed.  As stated that they need "we the people" to give them the authority. :-)

 

So it isn't a matter of whether we have control, it is a matter of who we have allowed to have control of the control of the Fed. I said it that way just to make it silly sounding. ;-)

 

To me, what this boils down to, as you have stated as well, is that corporations and large money has taken control of our government.  And with control of the government comes the control of the Fed and monetary policy. That is the root I see which needs to be struck. For example, The revolving door between Congress and K street; the hand picked placements in the FDA by companies like Searle, Monsanto, and Dupont going From Company to FDA and back to company.  And that is just one arm of government. 

 

 Yea.. sux0r

 

 The problem is that people need to stand up to the corporations again and put ye old leash on them.  We all know that a corporation is not a person. But due to well placed words and arguments in bills and courts, their personhood was passed, conceptualized and is now protected.  The legislature could resolve that silly little thing with one fell swoop of a pen, but as you say, they choose not to.

 

 This country has seen this type of corporate destruction before. It is not new, nor unique.  But the people have to get fed up enough and EDUCATED enough to make it happen.

 

 I mean the last big rise of anarchism dates back to the late1800's and through the early 1900's.  The result was the creation of the "Greatest Generation" supported by FDR policies that brought power back to the common man.  That is why he was so beloved by his large majority supporters. 

 

 But when the economic collapse culminated in 2008 it led to a hate for government by the tea party instead of hate of the corporations and banks that landed us in that hole.  The utter failure of republicans under W. Bush was really just an end to a several decade fiasco in the making.  

 

 So what has happened, is that the outrage has been misplaced, and not only misplaced, but directly funded(astroturf) by the exact corporations that pee'd all over us and caused the collapse.

 

 

 Quick example,... such as,... when we find out a corporation is going to cut their employees hours to under 30 hours so they don't have to pay for health insurance for their employee's; why are we mad at the government? the government is looking out for our well being by telling these corporations " Hey! take care of your employee's".  Shouldn't we be outraged at the corporation for being such arseholes to their employees and shame them?  I dunno,.... maybe I just think different than many.

 

Anyhow,... if the "occupy" people who are incompetent at actually accomplishing change could help the tea party to understand it is the corporations that are screwing us over,... maybe we can get something accomplished. :-)

[+Malamute]

Oh... it takes the government to reel in corporations.

 

Sorry, forgot to say that... but it is important to understand.

[c2288420]

Question-Are the "TPT" (Tea Party Terrorists) shutting down the government  because of the already funded ACA (Affordable Care Act) or because of entitlement programs? As time goes on, seems the rhetoric is changing. It was my understanding that it was the ACA but now I'm not so sure. What do you think?

 

Regards,

C

[+Malamute]

I wouldn't call them TPT's honestly.  The tea party and moreso the corporate libertarians have always wanted to cripple and destroy government. I believe they say "shrink it so small, we can drown it in a bathtub".

 

 I would consider this Governmental Institutional Nihilism. We have people that do not believe in government running government and inflicting nihilistic values upon the institution.

 

 Burn it down. Who cares.

 

hrmph. 

 

I care!

[c2288420]

Had to look that one up. Regards, C    

 

ni·hil·ism

 

 noun \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\

: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value

: the belief that a society's political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed

Edited October 10, 2013 by c2288420

[+Malamute]

 

 

I mean, I have this little thing I believe in... and it is called Article I, II and III of the US Constitution.

 

 These people wrap themselves in the flag, scream to the high heavens about the Constitution and how much they support it; then turn around and try to destroy and undermine it's main tenet. 

 

 Sometimes I wonder if they ever actually read it. Well, at least beyond the Second Amendment.

[c2288420]

"I wouldn't call them TPT's honestly."  Well I would based on my understanding of the events. As I understand it, they (TPT's) are threatening Republicans of opposition in the next election if they vote for the CR. Consequently we are where we are because of these threats. Apparently, Some of the GOP are fearing for their political future at the expense of all of us just my  $0.02.

Regards,

C

[solabeirtan]

Doesn't it seem more like the Corpos have the Government on a yo-yo string?

 

Oh... it takes the government to reel in corporations.

 

Sorry, forgot to say that... but it is important to understand.

 

You're good on most points Mal so Im curious how you can claim that we have anything like a "Free Market" economy here.   

[zaphod]

Zaphod

 

Yes we need to raise revenues, but not at the expense of individual discretionary income. Hopefully we can agree on that. Some interesting points though. It is also why I stated that we cant operate our spending budget based off of the projections made during the late 90's. Which is why we are here.

 

Mal

 

None of them are willing to control the fed, and the fed is definitely not "we the people". The whole game has to stop and the only way to stop it is to quit feeding it. The entire reason they want the debt raised is so they can issue some debt to the fed. Propping up the markets so that DC's friends can keep playing the game. It is getting real old. They are giving us theater and only making everyday people feel the pain. Both groups.

 

Ive got some combicoins, but Id rather have more frequently traded items than gold if infrastructure goes. Other wise bitcoins have proven pretty "safe".

 

Interesting discussion. Thanks for sticking it out and keeping it cool.

 

" not at the expense of individual discretionary income"

Depends on income bracket, we need to stop the redistribution of wealth to the 1% at a minimum.  I doubt we'll even get that.  Watch as we end up with cuts to Medicare and Social Security instead.

[+Malamute]

Doesn't it seem more like the Corpos have the Government on a yo-yo string?

 

 

You're good on most points Mal so Im curious how you can claim that we have anything like a "Free Market" economy here.   

 

Good catch. Even as I finished typing it I thought to correct it properly.

 

 A well regulated free enterprise system. ;-)