. . . and you’d still have to raise the debt limit. That means no defense appropriations, no law enforcement appropriations, no highway appropriations. Nothing. None of it. And you’d still have to raise the debt ceiling. Or else default on interest payment. Or else decide which current beneficiaries don’t get their Social Security and Medicare checks.
If you haven’t watched this Holtz-Eakin video you should do so now:
Again, I know it is incredibly unpopular to say this, but the debt ceiling has to be raised. The question is are we getting the best deal possible, given the current environment, in exchange for raising it? Reasonable people can disagree on the latter, but not the former, unless I’m missing something.
You're not just missing something, you are missing quite a lot, but let's just start with the most basic.
First, you are accepting the USG terms of the debate by pegging certain classes of Federal spending as "mandatory."
Please, tell us: in what sense is this spending "mandatory"? Is it your position that Congress and the President are powerless to change anything put in this category as a matter of law?
That is pretty basic. There is much more, of course, but I'd really like to hear the NRO mainstream "conservative" answer to that.
The fallacy is in the notion of "mandatory spending". It's not mandatory. This bucket grew immensely with "emergency spending" in 2009; shrink it to 2008 "pre-emergency" levels and this crisis evaporates.
Helpful hint: Actual economics classes are taught by people like Holtz-Eakin, who may have strong liberal or conservative views but generally have a pretty good idea what they're talking about in terms of how the US economy actually functions.
They do not recite passages from Atlas Shrugged. Nor do they claim that anyone who disagrees with Grover Norquist about taxes and spending doesn't understand basic economics.
In fact, there are courses with names like "Econ 102", "Econ 201", and "Independent Research in Economics" that many people find useful, but don't always tell libertarians the things they want to hear.
Economics classes are taught by ivory-tower "intellectual" types who have never worked in the real world in their lives, who get government (i.e., theft) subsidized funding, and who probably can't balance a checkbook.
(Actually, looking at the US debt clock site, you can scratch out that last "probably".)
I suppose that you think Krugman "has a pretty good idea of what he's talking about"?
"Helpful hint: Actual economics classes are taught by people like Holtz-Eakin, who may have strong liberal or conservative views but generally have a pretty good idea what they're talking about in terms of how the US economy actually functions."
If this is the case, why are we in the mess we're in?
What I learned from my econ courses is that my professors really didn't know what they was talking about. I learned everything I knew about economics from reading dead guys.
Please explain then, based upon the "dead guys" you've read, exactly how throwing hundreds of thousands out of work, stopping payments on Social Security benefits for seniors, ceasing to build roads and operate airports, etc., will get us out of "the mess we're in".
Will people who depend upon the government be hurt? Why, yes, they would. Which is why one dead guy by the name of Bastiat warned people about believing broken windows would bring about economic growth and another dead guy by the name of Hayek warned that basing a system on socialism would put us all down the road to serfdom.
By the way, wasn't the stimulus that Obama asked for supposed to stop all of the "teachers, police, firefighters" from being fired and the infrastructure to be rebuilt? Can't have it both ways, AndyS
Not the point. You and many seem to be claiming that immediately and sharply reducing borrowing will improve matters economically. The exact opposite seems most likely, as the immediate effect would be to withdraw trillions from the economy. And no household or business operates without significant borrowing; why would it be rational to run a government differently.
So -- what do the dead guys have to say about these issues?
Except for the fact that there is currently $1.6 trillion in bank coffers thanks to constant statist intervention in the economy---it is on the sidelines.
Look at the St Louis Fed repoorting sometime before you opine and you won't look so silly.
BTW, there is another $2 trillion or so in reserves of Fortune 100 companies. The reason is nobody knows where to spend or invest money and is deathly afraid the economy will collapse and they'll need those reserves to take the writedowns.
The dead guys---with the exception of the very dead FDR and Keynes---would say stop screwing with the economy and let the markets work.
The money's on the sidelines because money is virtually free these days, but management doesn't see a way to invest it profitably. That's what happens in recessions!
So... exactly how would withdrawing trillions from the economy create economic improvement?
The money is on the sidelines because we don't dare spend it. Look at the writedowns taken in the mortgage industry this quarter thanks to the meddling of Democrats in the housing market.
You certainly can't hire in that environment of uncertainty, which doesn't help unemployment.
The only boom is in government and it is bankrupting the nation. How does having more bureaucrats help anything?
The only good thing about money on the sidelines is that Bernanke's monetizing of the debt doesn't make inflation fully felt until the money hits the street. This is why he doesn't dare raise interest rates to get that money out---double-digit inflation would happen overnight.
Absolutely the point, AndyS. If you bother to understand where the money the government gets comes from, you'd understand the dead guys very much so. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was wrong.
Ah yes. The enduring wisdom of right-wingers. They know more about economics, history, genetics, developmental biology, paleontology, climate science, and cosmology than people who have dedicated their lives to researching these subjects. Without ever doing a lick of work in the field.
And it's a very special, durable kind of knowledge. When confronted with evidence that thoroughly refutes it, this knowledge holds firm and stands its ground.
Truly, these are the people we should trust to run the country.
Somewhat amusing way to jump in the middle of an argument between right-wingers - half of whom are presumably taking the side of the argument which you'd be making if you weren't saddled with a below room temperature IQ.
I, for one, am looking forward to our debt being downgraded. I think the downgrade is necessary and proper, and may well rein in Congress when nothing else has.
Downgraded debt means that money will go to more intelligent places - and inflation will ensure that money does not sit still. And right now, this country needs both.
The Left believes that the government is the source of all jobs and goodness. Downgrading the debt will demonstrate how incorrect that is.
Mr. Foster, you're missing that *it's precisely because* non discretionary spending is out of control that we're arguing for REAL cuts not a ponzi scheme anymore.
The debt ceiling isn't the problem. THE DEBT IS THE PROBLEM and the fact is, zeroing discretionary spending doesn't solve THE DEBT problem.
Your straw men are tired. Boehner's plan may be the best the GOP can do. If so, that can be its epitaph, because it failed to do its job in the last 8 months when it was supposed to be telling the American people what it needed to know to support changes in non discretionary spending.
Yes. Great. It needs to be raised. So let the Democrats institute some serious spending cuts so that we can raise it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're not just missing something, you are missing quite a lot, but let's just start with the most basic.
First, you are accepting the USG terms of the debate by pegging certain classes of Federal spending as "mandatory."
Please, tell us: in what sense is this spending "mandatory"? Is it your position that Congress and the President are powerless to change anything put in this category as a matter of law?
That is pretty basic. There is much more, of course, but I'd really like to hear the NRO mainstream "conservative" answer to that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fallacy is in the notion of "mandatory spending". It's not mandatory. This bucket grew immensely with "emergency spending" in 2009; shrink it to 2008 "pre-emergency" levels and this crisis evaporates.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief.
NRO Finance guy: Please allocate funds for Foster so he can enroll in Econ 101 next semester.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHelpful hint: Actual economics classes are taught by people like Holtz-Eakin, who may have strong liberal or conservative views but generally have a pretty good idea what they're talking about in terms of how the US economy actually functions.
They do not recite passages from Atlas Shrugged. Nor do they claim that anyone who disagrees with Grover Norquist about taxes and spending doesn't understand basic economics.
In fact, there are courses with names like "Econ 102", "Econ 201", and "Independent Research in Economics" that many people find useful, but don't always tell libertarians the things they want to hear.
Hope this helps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHelpful hint:
Economics classes are taught by ivory-tower "intellectual" types who have never worked in the real world in their lives, who get government (i.e., theft) subsidized funding, and who probably can't balance a checkbook.
(Actually, looking at the US debt clock site, you can scratch out that last "probably".)
I suppose that you think Krugman "has a pretty good idea of what he's talking about"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Helpful hint: Actual economics classes are taught by people like Holtz-Eakin, who may have strong liberal or conservative views but generally have a pretty good idea what they're talking about in terms of how the US economy actually functions."
If this is the case, why are we in the mess we're in?
What I learned from my econ courses is that my professors really didn't know what they was talking about. I learned everything I knew about economics from reading dead guys.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlease explain then, based upon the "dead guys" you've read, exactly how throwing hundreds of thousands out of work, stopping payments on Social Security benefits for seniors, ceasing to build roads and operate airports, etc., will get us out of "the mess we're in".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWill people who depend upon the government be hurt? Why, yes, they would. Which is why one dead guy by the name of Bastiat warned people about believing broken windows would bring about economic growth and another dead guy by the name of Hayek warned that basing a system on socialism would put us all down the road to serfdom.
By the way, wasn't the stimulus that Obama asked for supposed to stop all of the "teachers, police, firefighters" from being fired and the infrastructure to be rebuilt? Can't have it both ways, AndyS
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot the point. You and many seem to be claiming that immediately and sharply reducing borrowing will improve matters economically. The exact opposite seems most likely, as the immediate effect would be to withdraw trillions from the economy. And no household or business operates without significant borrowing; why would it be rational to run a government differently.
So -- what do the dead guys have to say about these issues?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept for the fact that there is currently $1.6 trillion in bank coffers thanks to constant statist intervention in the economy---it is on the sidelines.
Look at the St Louis Fed repoorting sometime before you opine and you won't look so silly.
BTW, there is another $2 trillion or so in reserves of Fortune 100 companies. The reason is nobody knows where to spend or invest money and is deathly afraid the economy will collapse and they'll need those reserves to take the writedowns.
The dead guys---with the exception of the very dead FDR and Keynes---would say stop screwing with the economy and let the markets work.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe money's on the sidelines because money is virtually free these days, but management doesn't see a way to invest it profitably. That's what happens in recessions!
So... exactly how would withdrawing trillions from the economy create economic improvement?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe money is on the sidelines because we don't dare spend it. Look at the writedowns taken in the mortgage industry this quarter thanks to the meddling of Democrats in the housing market.
You certainly can't hire in that environment of uncertainty, which doesn't help unemployment.
The only boom is in government and it is bankrupting the nation. How does having more bureaucrats help anything?
The only good thing about money on the sidelines is that Bernanke's monetizing of the debt doesn't make inflation fully felt until the money hits the street. This is why he doesn't dare raise interest rates to get that money out---double-digit inflation would happen overnight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely the point, AndyS. If you bother to understand where the money the government gets comes from, you'd understand the dead guys very much so. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels was wrong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't you explain to us rubes where government gets its money and how this is both free and painless?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes. The enduring wisdom of right-wingers. They know more about economics, history, genetics, developmental biology, paleontology, climate science, and cosmology than people who have dedicated their lives to researching these subjects. Without ever doing a lick of work in the field.
And it's a very special, durable kind of knowledge. When confronted with evidence that thoroughly refutes it, this knowledge holds firm and stands its ground.
Truly, these are the people we should trust to run the country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Ah yes. The enduring wisdom of right-wingers..."
Somewhat amusing way to jump in the middle of an argument between right-wingers - half of whom are presumably taking the side of the argument which you'd be making if you weren't saddled with a below room temperature IQ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI, for one, am looking forward to our debt being downgraded. I think the downgrade is necessary and proper, and may well rein in Congress when nothing else has.
Downgraded debt means that money will go to more intelligent places - and inflation will ensure that money does not sit still. And right now, this country needs both.
The Left believes that the government is the source of all jobs and goodness. Downgrading the debt will demonstrate how incorrect that is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Foster, you're missing that *it's precisely because* non discretionary spending is out of control that we're arguing for REAL cuts not a ponzi scheme anymore.
The debt ceiling isn't the problem. THE DEBT IS THE PROBLEM and the fact is, zeroing discretionary spending doesn't solve THE DEBT problem.
Your straw men are tired. Boehner's plan may be the best the GOP can do. If so, that can be its epitaph, because it failed to do its job in the last 8 months when it was supposed to be telling the American people what it needed to know to support changes in non discretionary spending.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmerican Action Forum - Looks like a lot of establishment Republicans (Ridge, Coleman, Jeb)
Then I read stuff like this (on their energy issues tab)
"First, we need to accept that our oil addiction is not going to be broken by going cold turkey."
By all means, let's ALL make sure to listen to what these guys have to say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse