So, i had a random thought today as i often do. could all of this stonewalling between the 2 parties be an attempt by the right, tea party or whoever to force the President into using his 14th Amendment powers?
Then just to turn around and try to impeach him for doing it?
From the NYtimes:
"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
I"m going to go out on a limb here (since all I'm doing is spewing my personal opinion), and postulate that both sides feel like they've been screwed over in the last decade.
The democrats look at the in-roads the Tea Party has made in D.C., Bush's 8 years in office (which many Dems still think he stole from Gore), the Bush tax cuts, and the war; and they think, "it's time we got some of ours!"
The Republicans on the other hand, see Obama's Presidency as a complete and utter disaster. Both sides are so firmly entrenched because they feel they've been screwed that neither side wants to give an inch. The politicians in Washington are afraid that if they give too much away, they'll dis-insentivize their core party support in the upcoming election.
No, because the 14th amendment doesn't authorize the President to do what the NYT is claiming he has the right to do.
alarmingrick wrote:"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "i really feel like the R's have really not been sincere in their side of the talks."
Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
That takes some pretty heavy (and awkward) interpretation to get the resutls that is claimed...
biccat wrote:No, because the 14th amendment doesn't authorize the President to do what the NYT is claiming he has the right to do.
alarmingrick wrote:"On Friday, in its most definitive statement yet on the subject, the White House again ruled out the possibility that Mr. Obama would cite the 14th Amendment to disregard the debt-limit law and unilaterally order government borrowing to proceed if no deal was reached by Tuesday’s deadline for raising the debt ceiling."
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting this "i really feel like the R's have really not been sincere in their side of the talks."
Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
wait wait wait... if this is true and they were serious... their plan would save more right? Isn't this the exact opposite of what is happening? I'm pretty sure the Dem plan saves 1 trillion more than the corporate [MOD EDIT - Do NOT try to 'work around' the swear filter.] that is the Republican plan.
When Bush Jr. (and his administration) raised the debt ceiling seven times, I don't remember any big stink over those actions like this one.
do say.....
From 2006 during a debate to raise the debt ceiling....
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
biccat wrote:Until recently, it's only the Republicans who have been seriously addressing the issue. The President has given speeches, but not proposed any actual plan, and only recently has Sen. Reid issued a bill of his own. The Republicans have had bills pass through the house, but the Senate Dems refuse to pass them and the President vows a veto on anything but exactly what he wants.
If the measure of compromise was putting a bill into the house that your side loves, but had zero chance of passing the senate, which obviously it isn't.
Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others. When this debate began Boehner said he wanted a net savings that was no more than 15% revenue increases, and no more than that. Well, the Democrats offered up better than that more than a month ago, but the Republicans didn't even consider taking the deal.
I've explained to you before. You will again pretend it isn't true, because that lets you continue. This is a problem. It is, in large part, a symbol of the greater problem that's causing the logjam in Washington right now. Too many ideologues reacting to the world they like to pretend exists.
Most of the debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the medicaid drug act and the Iraq war, all of which they voted for with NO PLAN TO FUND THEM.
Despite nearly a decade of Republican mismanagement there were no signs that our debt had suddenly become unsustainable until they found it was a useful weapon to hold the government hostage for the second time this year.
The Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. None. They ran up this debt and now refuse to discuss any way to pay for it, except on the backs of the poor and working class.
Most of the debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the medicaid drug act and the Iraq war, all of which they voted for with NO PLAN TO FUND THEM.
Despite nearly a decade of Republican mismanagement there were no signs that our debt had suddenly become unsustainable until they found it was a useful weapon to hold the government hostage for the second time this year.
The Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. None. They ran up this debt and now refuse to discuss any way to pay for it, except on the backs of the poor and working class.
BTW, the 14th ammendment thing, that just means POTUS must pay any debts legally incurred. It in no way allows him to issue new debt, which is the issue with having no money.
So the Constitution says the President MUST pay Goldman Sacks et al, before he pays the troops, social security, whatever.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Sounds like Obama is sticking to his guns, no matter how old those guns are.
Geeze. Whoever thought having an honest, reliable, politician who says what he means and sticks by his word would cause so much fuss?
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Sounds like Obama is sticking to his guns, no matter how old those guns are.
Geeze. Whoever thought having an honest, reliable, politician who says what he means and sticks by his word would cause so much fuss?
From 2006 during a debate to raise the debt ceiling....
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!
Words spoken by none other than then Sen. Barack Obama
Obama did, however, vote in favor of TARP, which raised the debt ceiling by $700 billion.
Additionally, Obama (and other Democrat leaders) have openly said that they're opposition to the 2006 increase was politically motivated, which moves the argument on the Republican side into either "They did it, so we can too!" territory, or the much more effective "This is immoral and/or irresponsible!" territory.
Of course, the reality is that those Republicans currently trying to oppose any debt ceiling increase were largely not in office for the previous votes to increase, and the one's that were have essentially avoided the issue of political motivation altogether, in part because the Democrats took it away by saying they were wrong for exactly the reason they claim that the Republicans are now wrong.
At the moment the fight is between a group of Republicans who are either ideologically committed to not raising the debt ceiling, or acting in representation of constituencies that are, and a group of Republicans that want to raise the debt ceiling in concert with being seen to address the deficit in some capacity. Because of this it isn't so much that the Republicans are being obstructionist, as they are squabbling amongst themselves for leadership of the Party.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:BTW, the 14th ammendment thing, that just means POTUS must pay any debts legally incurred. It in no way allows him to issue new debt, which is the issue with having no money.
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
sebster wrote:If the measure of compromise was putting a bill into the house that your side loves, but had zero chance of passing the senate, which obviously it isn't.
So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
sebster wrote:Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others. When this debate began Boehner said he wanted a net savings that was no more than 15% revenue increases, and no more than that. Well, the Democrats offered up better than that more than a month ago, but the Republicans didn't even consider taking the deal.
Which is plainly false, since the Democrats didn't offer anything of the sort "more than a month ago." But like you said, compromise is about accepting that you will have to concede something to get others. For example, the President wants an increase in the debt limit of $2 Trillion+. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts.
biccat wrote:
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
The NYT article presented does not advance the claim that the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, it advances the claim that others claim the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, while also stating that the Administration does not believe it has such a power.
I mean, this is the first line of the article:
While President Obama’s critics on the right regularly call him a tyrant, in the debt-limit showdown he is flatly rejecting presidential powers that others claim for him.
With the "others" bit backed up by this:
Several House Democratic leaders, former President Bill Clinton and some constitutional lawyers in recent days have said Mr. Obama should, if necessary, invoke the amendment, which holds that “the validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned.”
And the Administration's position given by this:
But Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, said at his Friday briefing for White House reporters: “This administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling. Congress has the authorities necessary to ensure that we meet our obligations.”
Honestly, I don't see how you could read, from the article, that the NYT is advocating either side. Unless you believe that reporting on what others are saying is a tacit endorsement of what is being said, in which case you must have some strange opinions about conservative media and Islamic terrorism, or liberal media and gay marriage.
biccat wrote:
In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts
That doesn't imply that nothing is being given up, it implies that some of spending cuts the Republicans want are being countered by proposed tax increases by Democrats. The Reid bill is a good example of this.
Additionally, it is disingenuous to suppose that the President is the only party witch an active interest in raising the debt ceiling when Republican leaders have also expressed an interest in it.
biccat wrote:
So would you agree that the NYT is advancing a fraudulent Constitutional claim in order to deceive people into supporting unlawful acts? Just making sure.
The NYT article presented does not advance the claim that the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, it advances the claim that others claim the President has the power to ignore the debt limit, while also stating that the Administration does not believe it has such a power.
Actually, the article does advance that claim, specifically by failing to accurately present both sides of the debate.
In fact, can you identify any opposition to the constitutional interpretation advanced, other than "what the language of the Civil War-era amendment means is unclear"? The interpretation advanced by this article is novel and, quite frankly, absurd. But for some reason, the NYT was unable to find anyone to contradict the position.
dogma wrote:That doesn't imply that nothing is being given up, it implies that some of spending cuts the Republicans want are being countered by proposed tax increases by Democrats. The Reid bill is a good example of this.
That doesn't follow. The only way you could show that tax increases are being proposed as a counter to spending cuts is by showing that there's a general agreement between raising the debt ceiling and some level of cuts. This hasn't happened, so I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusion.
biccat wrote:
Actually, the article does advance that claim, specifically by failing to accurately present both sides of the debate.
Sure it doesn't accurately present either side of the debate, it presents them an summary. I mean, it isn't specifically accurate, but that is the nature of summary.
One side claims that the President has the power to overrule the debt limit, and the other claims that he does not. Accurately presenting each side does not involve claiming that one is correct.
For someone that complains about biased news, you seem awfully keen to advocate biased news.
biccat wrote:
In fact, can you identify any opposition to the constitutional interpretation advanced, other than "what the language of the Civil War-era amendment means is unclear"?
I already did: the quote from the Administration. Apparently you didn't read my post.
biccat wrote:
The interpretation advanced by this article is novel and, quite frankly, absurd. But for some reason, the NYT was unable to find anyone to contradict the position.
What interpretation? At what point does the article explicitly advance any interpretation of the 14th?
biccat wrote:
That doesn't follow. The only way you could show that tax increases are being proposed as a counter to spending cuts is by showing that there's a general agreement between raising the debt ceiling and some level of cuts. This hasn't happened, so I'm not sure how you're drawing your conclusion.
The Reid bill versus the Cantor bill.
I don't need to show that Republicans and Democrats are, collectively, countering one another, only that some Republicans and some Democrats are countering one another; because compromise is non-specific.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Which is plainly false, since the Democrats didn't offer anything of the sort "more than a month ago."
Is the problem just that you don't actually know the substance of the debate? Are you claiming Boehner never laid out an 85/15 split as the target, or are you claiming that the Democrat offer of 83/17 was substantially different from that?
But like you said, compromise is about accepting that you will have to concede something to get others. For example, the President wants an increase in the debt limit of $2 Trillion+. In exchange, he wants to give up...well, nothing, because tax increases are being offered as an exchange for spending cuts.
Both sides want to fund the continuing operation of the country. Outside of the loonie fringe of one party, everyone realises that this requires increasing the debt limit, because default is bad.
The actual debate is over how much the ceiling is raised by, and what revenue increases and expenditure reductions are made to improve the bottom line in the meantime.
In this debate, the Democrats wanted something near a 50/50 proportion, and ceded that position a long time ago. Meanwhile, the Republicans wanted something like 85/15, and have been pretending that they haven't been offered that position.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
Steadfastly refusing to agree to ANYTHING except exactly what you want (which is pretty much what the Dems got, given the details I'm seeing from the 'compromise') doesn't make the other side unwilling to compromise. It makes you a jerk.
sebster wrote:Is the problem just that you don't actually know the substance of the debate? Are you claiming Boehner never laid out an 85/15 split as the target, or are you claiming that the Democrat offer of 83/17 was substantially different from that?
Perhaps if you would make it clear what Democrat plan or concession you're referring to. Are you referring to Obama's "We'll accept this...no, wait, we won't" moment?
sebster wrote:Both sides want to fund the continuing operation of the country. Outside of the loonie fringe of one party, everyone realises that this requires increasing the debt limit, because default is bad.
I'm not sure you understand what is meant by default. Failing to pass the debt ceiling increase will not result in default, at least not for a significant amount of time. If we're at the point where we can't service our current debt without taking on more debt then we're already hosed.
Fortunately, this isn't the case, because there is more than enough of a revinue stream into the US government to satisfy our current debt obligations.
sebster wrote:In this debate, the Democrats wanted something near a 50/50 proportion, and ceded that position a long time ago. Meanwhile, the Republicans wanted something like 85/15, and have been pretending that they haven't been offered that position.
The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.
biccat wrote:So a "compromise" must be something that the other side supports? You can't declare something not a compromise simply because the Democrats are stalemating and refusing to accept any deals.
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
You're both right.
Webster wrote:com·pro·mise/ˈkämprəˌmīz/ Noun: An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
Both sides have to support a compromise, otherwise it doesn't work.
And claiming democrats haven't tried to compromise makes me giggle.
alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?
As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.
But of course, all our circumstances are different....
sebster wrote:
A compromise would be something both sides would support, yes. That would, in fact, be the exact definition of the word.
Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
Those are both accurate definitions of "compromise". As I said earlier, it is a nonspecific term.
biccat wrote:
Perhaps if you would make it clear what Democrat plan or concession you're referring to. Are you referring to Obama's "We'll accept this...no, wait, we won't" moment?
You were unwilling to above, and yet you request it now?
Perhaps, if you want specificity, you should begin there.
Just a suggestion.
biccat wrote:
The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.
Really?
Lowering rates, and broadening the base.
Broadening the base means increasing the effective tax rate of at least some people. And, last time I checked, John Boehner had an R after his name, and was considered a leader of said R group.
dogma wrote:You were unwilling to above, and yet you request it now?
Not sure what you're talking about. Was it something in your inflamatory post above? I've been advised by the moderators to ignore troll posts, so I'm trying to make judgment calls on whether to respond to your posts or not. I may have missed something, so perhaps you could specify what request you made.
dogma wrote:Really?
Lowering rates, and broadening the base.
Broadening the base means increasing the effective tax rate of at least some people. And, last time I checked, John Boehner had an R after his name, and was considered a leader of said R group.
Really. You can increase tax revinue by means other than raising taxes. For example, if you increase economic performance, more people will be making money, thereby leading to more tax income. As Marco Rubio said in an excellent speech earlier during this debate, "we need more taxpayers, not more taxes."
However, you're technically right that increasing employment would lead to a higher effective tax rate on their earnings.
biccat wrote:
Not sure what you're talking about. Was it something in your inflamatory post above?
It is inflammatory to ask questions regarding your beliefs about specific topics?
Or are you referring to my statement about bias, and your seemingly odd relationship with it?
biccat wrote:
I've been advised by the moderators to ignore troll posts, so I'm trying to make judgment calls on whether to respond to your posts or not. I may have missed something, so perhaps you could specify what request you made.
No, you clearly stated things about Republicans and Democrats, both in general, regarding debt negotiations, and seemed keen to proceed in that manner, but now you seem to be recanting.
I'm merely stating that if you're interested in discussing a specific debt proposal then you should probably lead the way. I mean, there aren't that many worth mentioning, and on the Republican side two of the prominent ones contravene what you're saying regarding the absence of tax increases (Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell by technicality).
biccat wrote:
Really. You can increase tax revinue by means other than raising taxes. For example, if you increase economic performance, more people will be making money, thereby leading to more tax income. As Marco Rubio said in an excellent speech earlier during this debate, "we need more taxpayers, not more taxes."
However, you're technically right that increasing employment would lead to a higher effective tax rate on their earnings.
Indeed you can, but that wasn't what Mr. Boehner was talking about. Unless he intends to lower the rate of employment, and broaden the base of employment; which would not beyond the political rhetoric of either party.
I suppose he could have been talking about lowering the rate of taxes, and broadening the base of employment, but that would be an odd change of topic without a specific redirect given the question asked; meaning that it was either a gaffe or a statement about raising taxes.
Keep in mind, I was claiming that your statement, that no Republican leader has ever been in favor of tax increases, was wrong. Not that there was no way to increase revenue without increasing taxes.
Q: What kind of non-tax revenues, if any, have you guys suggested as a compromise on your part to bring revenues into the equation.
A: As you're very well aware, there was a big conversation underway about revenues, revenues in the context of tax reform: lowering rates, broadening the base, which would encourage more economic activity and real growth in our economy that would result in additional revenues to the federal government.
I'm not sure how you can interepret that in any way other than "lowering the rate of taxes" and "broadening the base of employment." Especially given that the question specifically asked about "non-tax revenue," which I think the Speaker correctly interpreted as meaning "tax increases," given the context of the question.
So again, Boehner wasn't proposing tax increases, he was specifically saying that taxes should be decreased.
dogma wrote:I'm merely stating that if you're interested in discussing a specific debt proposal then you should probably lead the way. I mean, there aren't that many worth mentioning, and on the Republican side two of the prominent ones contravene what you're saying regarding the absence of tax increases.
There have been only two Republican plans, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill ("The Cut, Cap and Balance bill would impose a very high barrier to approve any tax increase, requiring a two-thirds vote -- or supermajority -- in both the House and Senate") and the Boehner plan ("The framework includes no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have fought for since day one") that had been passed through the House of Representatives. Neither of these plans includes tax increases.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how you can interepret that in any way other than "lowering the rate of taxes" and "broadening the base of employment." Especially given that the question specifically asked about "non-tax revenue," which I think the Speaker correctly interpreted as meaning "tax increases," given the context of the question.
Very easily. He redirected a question regarding non-tax revenue into tax reform, and then spoke to the generic concepts of "lowering rates" and "broadening the base". I have no idea what rates, or what base he was speaking to, as he did not say anything beyond that both relate to the concept of tax reform.
Indeed, employment wasn't mentioned at all, so the idea that Mr. Boehner must have been referencing the concept of "broadening the base of employment" and not "broadening the base of taxes" (taxes having been mentioned) seems more like wishful thinking than an accurate appraisal of Mr. Boehner's words.
biccat wrote:
So again, Boehner wasn't proposing tax increases, he was specifically saying that taxes should be decreased.
I'm glad that you're so certain.
biccat wrote:
There have been only two Republican plans, the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill ("The Cut, Cap and Balance bill would impose a very high barrier to approve any tax increase, requiring a two-thirds vote -- or supermajority -- in both the House and Senate") and the Boehner plan ("The framework includes no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have fought for since day one") that had been passed through the House of Representatives. Neither of these plans includes tax increases.
Indeed they do not, but they are not the only Republican plans that have been discussed in either the House, or the media. If you only mean to reference Republican plans passed by the House, and not Republican plans in general, then you should have been more specific.
Me too. Because it was a very clear answer (in the context of poiltical comments) despite not properly answering the question or distinguishing the answer to correct the reporter's mistaken assumption. But it was quite clear what he was talking about. I suppose if you would like to suggest a different interpretation, you'll have to suggest some that are reasonable in the context of the question and answer.
I'm sure it would be great to live in a world where everyone clearly spells out the meaning of every word that they use to a degree of unquestionable specificity, but those of us in the real world have to make do with context and the vagueries of language.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Neither of these plans includes tax increases.
Indeed they do not, but they are not the only Republican plans that have been discussed in either the House, or the media. If you only mean to reference Republican plans passed by the House, and not Republican plans in general, then you should have been more specific.
Then you'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about. As I've already shown, your example to show the Republican leadership supported increases in tax rates is incorrect. The only bills to pass through the House have both exempted tax increases. If you have evidence of a plan supported by the Republican leadership that included tax hikes (and not as a concession to Democrats in a compromise bill, because that really wouldn't counter my comment), I'd be happy to cede the point.
biccat wrote:
Me too. Because it was a very clear answer (in the context of poiltical comments) despite not properly answering the question or distinguishing the answer to correct the reporter's mistaken assumption. But it was quite clear what he was talking about. I suppose if you would like to suggest a different interpretation, you'll have to suggest some that are reasonable in the context of the question and answer.
I already have. Mr. Boehner redirected a question on non-tax revenue sources into tax reform, and then specifically spoke to what can be regarded as the lowering of tax rates, and the broadening of the tax base.
Note that broadening the tax base does not mean increasing employment, and lowering tax rates does not mean lowering all tax rates.
biccat wrote:
I'm sure it would be great to live in a world where everyone clearly spells out the meaning of every word that they use to a degree of unquestionable specificity, but those of us in the real world have to make do with context and the vagueries of language.
Indeed, we do, but that doesn't mean we must draw certain conclusions from what we hear or read.
biccat wrote:
Then you'll have to be more specific about what you're talking about. As I've already shown, your example to show the Republican leadership supported increases in tax rates is incorrect.
No, that's incorrect. You dodged the criticism by shifting from Republican plans, in general, to Republican plans that were passed by the House. I'm willing to accept that you misspoke earlier, but at the moment you seem to be moving the goal posts.
You also failed to address the proposals I referenced, I may have been too vague, but substituting other examples and claiming that they contravene my intended ones is not showing that my intended examples were incorrect.
biccat wrote:
The only bills to pass through the House have both exempted tax increases. If you have evidence of a plan supported by the Republican leadership that included tax hikes (and not as a concession to Democrats in a compromise bill, because that really wouldn't counter my comment), I'd be happy to cede the point.
Yes, it would counter your comment, which was that the Republican leadership has not backed a plan including tax increases. If any member of the Republican leadership has, at any point, backed a plan including tax increases (even in compromise) then he has backed a plan including tax increases. Perhaps you meant something else, but I can only read what you have written.
At any rate, Boehner's bill, even as passed, closes several tax loopholes and therefore raises effective tax rates (because it doesn't actually cut taxes), Cantor has not only expressed sympathy with (and voted for) this (as my cited article shows) but has included them via his support for the Ryan budget (albeit not the same ones that Boehner's plan includes). McConnell's plan also feature a series of effective tax rate increases, much as Reid's does (because they're basically the same, barring the inclusion of a trigger).
I guess you could claim that Ryan's budget isn't a part of the current negotiations, but that sort of negates the present position taken by Cantor, and much the Republican House.
alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?
As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.
But of course, all our circumstances are different....
Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?
Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?
My country's ability to pay it's bills would be enhanced though.
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?
Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?
Yes. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security went away, my ability to pay my mortgage would be enhanced.
alarmingrick wrote:Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Is your ability to pay your mortgage enhanced by increasing taxes on big oil companies or millionaires?
Nope. Is your's if Medicare/Medicaid goes away? how about Social Security?
Yes. If Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security went away, my ability to pay my mortgage would be enhanced.
AHHH, i see now! i'm great. screw the rest of the country? got it....
biccat wrote: But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?
It would depend on who you're defining as the ones "screwed." Currently, the ones doing the screwing under Social Security are a lot less numerous and a lot better off than the ones being screwed.
biccat wrote: But I don't think that dissolving those programs would "screw the country."
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?
It would depend on who you're defining as the ones "screwed." Currently, the ones doing the screwing under Social Security are a lot less numerous and a lot better off than the ones being screwed.
alarmingrick wrote:
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?
And what screwing constitutes.
I'll not likely ever need Social Security, for a number of reasons, but my parents do. Provided that my desire to see them cared for is constant, it is unlikely that the amount I pay into Social Security will exceed the amount my parents will draw due to health needs.
Of course, I'm the exception because of where my income is derived from.
alarmingrick wrote:
I guess it all depends on if you're the one screwing or the one screwed, huh?
And what screwing constitutes.
I'll not likely ever need Social Security, for a number of reasons, but my parents do. Provided that my desire to see them cared for is constant, it is unlikely that the amount I pay into Social Security will exceed the amount my parents will draw due to health needs.
Of course, I'm the exception because of where my income is derived from.
Well, keep me in mind if you ever need to hire a bodyguard.....
biccat wrote:Actually, it's not. A compromise is ceding some of your position to accomodate the other side.
Which is basically exactly what I said earlier "Compromise is about having a substantive debate on what you want, and accepting that you will have to concede somethings to get others." You're being silly.
Steadfastly refusing to agree to ANYTHING except exactly what you want (which is pretty much what the Dems got, given the details I'm seeing from the 'compromise') doesn't make the other side unwilling to compromise. It makes you a jerk.
Boehner said he wanted the split in deficit reduction to be 85% reduced expenditure, and 15% increased revenue. The final compromise between the two parties came in at 83% reduced expenditure, and 17% increased revenue. Now, you have two choices;
You can either claim that Democrats wanted an 83/17 split from the very beginning. This means you will have to surrender any and all future claims that they're socialists, and that they are in fact very keen on reducing government expenditure.
Or you can accept that Democrats wanted something much closer to 50/50, and gave up 33%, while the Republicans waited until the 11th hour to concede 2%. Which would make the Republicans the jerks you're complaining about.
Choose carefully.
The original position, which I'll grant was ceded a while ago, was that there should only be a debt increase. Then they wanted 100% tax increases to reduce the deficit. Republicans (the leadership at least) have always advocated a "cuts only" approach.
So, in ending up with 83/17 you have to concede the Republicans ended up with a final position much closer to what they wanted, and were much less willing to concede. Which would make them the jerks, yes?
You can either claim that Democrats wanted an 83/17 split from the very beginning. This means you will have to surrender any and all future claims that they're socialists, and that they are in fact very keen on reducing government expenditure.
Or you can accept that Democrats wanted something much closer to 50/50, and gave up 33%, while the Republicans waited until the 11th hour to concede 2%. Which would make the Republicans the jerks you're complaining about.
Choose carefully.
What if I choose: "Please substantiate your claim that the Republicans wanted an 85/15 split and the Democrats wanted a 50/50 split."
alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?
As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.
But of course, all our circumstances are different....
Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Everu one making 200k (250 for married filing joint) a year would have got taxed, and when the current rates go up next year ALL rates go up. If you pay Federal income tax, your rate WILL go up. Period.
Hooah. How much of their money do you want to confiscate?
Do you have a 401K? Any indexed funds? Any savings? Wanna bet some of that is invested in a Big Evil Company? Wanna bet if you tax them too much YOUR retirement fund suffers as their stock value declines?
Alternatively, why not allow folks to make money? Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to? Does hurting someone who does better than you make you feel better about yourself or something?
I honestly don't get it. Why do folks feel OWED? Why be jealous because someone else is doing better than you? Why give the Gov't a pass on being irresponsible with the money they already confiscate? That line of thinking is honestly alien to me.
alarmingrick wrote:Or is it just business as usual? "you suck, no you suck"? As a mortgage holder, i'm seeing enough blame to go around to both sides. but, i really feel like the R's have really not
been sincere in their side of the talks. the D's moved to the point where the D's are giving up on things i think they shouldn't have. yes, tax hikes, or repeeling tax breaks. whatever
you want to call it.
So, if your taxes went up it would be easier for you to make mortgage payments? If the home owners ability to deduct mortgage interest went away, it would be easier for you to pay your mortgage?
As a fellow mortgage holder, I would have to answer that in my case, NO, if MY taxes went up or I could not deduct the interest my ability to pay my mortage would not be enhanced.
But of course, all our circumstances are different....
Well, i'm not a big oil company or a millionaire so, my taxes wouldn't be going up under what the Dems had wanted.
Guess our circumstances are different....
Everu one making 200k (250 for married filing joint) a year would have got taxed, and when the current rates go up next year ALL rates go up. If you pay Federal income tax, your rate WILL go up. Period.
Hooah. How much of their money do you want to confiscate?
Do you have a 401K? Any indexed funds? Any savings? Wanna bet some of that is invested in a Big Evil Company? Wanna bet if you tax them too much YOUR retirement fund suffers as their stock value declines?
Alternatively, why not allow folks to make money? Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to? Does hurting someone who does better than you make you feel better about yourself or something?
I honestly don't get it. Why do folks feel OWED? Why be jealous because someone else is doing better than you? Why give the Gov't a pass on being irresponsible with the money they already confiscate? That line of thinking is honestly alien to me.
How about the Republicans stand up and admit they ran this crap up going into Iraq and pushing through the tax cuts in the first place? Why doesn't the truth of why we are where we are come out?
Families incur debt they can manage, like car and house payments. They also lose those assets when they fail to manage the debt. Or like college loans, which they believe will lead to a better paying job, which will be used to pay back the loan. No reason the Gov't should not be forced to do the same. They sure as heck used to...
As for Iraq being the cause, I'm not going to do your homework, but look up the actual numbers. Add up what a decade of war actually costs and compare it to the debt the country holds. You will see that the debt is WAY more than what Iraq cost. Did Iraq and other military actions contribute? Yep, but to consider them the cause is dishonest.
POINT: The wars are scheduled to wind down, and yet the debt is projected to rise faster.
As for tax cuts, since every single person who payed Federal income tax got one, why not be willing to raise the taxes on everyone? Why target the 'rich' who again are the 200k and above? How much of my money do you need? Again, check the numbers. If you consifcated every single dollar from every single person making more than 200k a year, you would not cover the projected defficit for fiscal year 2011. But you would hurt the economy. And show me a Gov't plan to use those confiscated dollars to actually pay debt? There is not one,instead, the plan is to continue to spend way, way beyond collected revenue. Give them more revenue, they increase the rate of spending and borrowing. That is destructive behavior we don't tolerate in individuals or businesses, why should we tolerate it in our Gov't? If I actually thought the Gov't would use the money wisely I would not have as much heartache giving it up.
We, as a nation need to realize we MUST SPEND less. That honestly is the bottom line.
CptJake wrote: Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to?
Because even if the comparison is apt, most families cannot exist without incurring debt.
But most families cannot exist by running a year-to-year spending deficit. Even if their income steadily increases year-to-year to service the added debt, eventually there will be a bump in the road and then you're in deep.
Agreed. The world can then become 1 state so we can, slowly but surely, move out into space. According to a White Dwarf I read, a tyranid hive fleet will approach in 38,000 years. GET A MOVE ON PEOPLE!
CptJake wrote: Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to?
Because even if the comparison is apt, most families cannot exist without incurring debt.
But most families cannot exist by running a year-to-year spending deficit. Even if their income steadily increases year-to-year to service the added debt, eventually there will be a bump in the road and then you're in deep.
Sure, but as I alluded to, the comparison isn't particularly apt. No one would think of a family as a government, and no one should think of the government as a family. Each has distinct financial needs and capabilities, and varying legal restrictions. Then, of course, there's scale to consider.
We could have abolished capitalism a couple of years ago, by not propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The classic function of government is to borrow and invest during a downturn, when private industry is struggling, then spend less and reap more during an upturn, to pay down the national debt..
Most western nations have fallen into a pattern of borrowing and spending (not necessarily investing) all the time.
Melissia wrote:First, we need a revolution of the proletariat. It all has to start with that!
If there is hope...it lies in the proles.
However, a proletariate revolution doesn't necessarily abolish capitalism. The French Revolution was a proletariat revolution and resulted in a capitalist Republic.
Kilkrazy wrote:We could have abolished capitalism a couple of years ago, by not propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money.
That wouldn't necessarily have abolished capitalism either. In fact, "propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money" was more of a step away from capitalism.
I just don't see any way to get rid of the profit motive and bargained-for-exchange that are essential elements of capitalism without almost complete totalitarianism.
I mean the whole capitalist system was about to collapse and was rescued by good old fashioned socialism.
It was the triumph of capitalism in two ways. The first ironic, in that capitalism rather than being a growth engine was suddenly revealed as a massive money destroying machine. Secondly, in the sense that capitalism managed to get itself dealt a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card off taxpayers' back.
For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who managed the Royal Bank of Scotland into a £24.1 billion hole in the ground, got out with a pension of £700,000 a year on top of other bennies. I'll have to work until I'm 67 to pay for that, and my pension has been cut 74%.
Apparently he has quite high bills for security, though.
Next time you go down to the free market, please would you buy some nerve gas for me? I'll pay you by PayPal.
Kilkrazy wrote:Next time you go down to the free market, please would you buy some nerve gas for me? I'll pay you by PayPal.
Unfortunately, as a capitalist, I'm not willing to act unless it's in my interest. However, if you're interested, we can certainly negotiate a reasonable fee. Send me a PM and we can work out the details.
Kilkrazy wrote: For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who managed the Royal Bank of Scotland into a £24.1 billion hole in the ground, got out with a pension of £700,000 a year on top of other bennies. I'll have to work until I'm 67 to pay for that, and my pension has been cut 74%.
That's something else i couldn't/can't understand. All of the retired union blue collar workers were raked over the coals for working
for the length of their agreed employment with a company, retire, and now they're the bad guys. and for doing what was agreed
to between them and whatever entity that employeed them. yet someone like the above mentioned is worth how much, for how
long and why?
biccat wrote:
Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.
What exactly is this "free market" you speak of?
It certainly isn't the system which exists in the absence of government, not given any actual development.
biccat wrote:
Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.
What exactly is this "free market" you speak of?
It certainly isn't the system which exists in the absence of government, not given any actual development.
A free market doesn't mean no government, it means no government involvement in the market except for evenhanded taxation and enforcement of private property and contractual rights. Essentially, it's a market that is free to operate according to market principles, not according to the whims of government.
Once government starts limiting the market, such as by discriminatory taxation (either on goods or people) it becomes less free. In the case of the 2008 bailout, the government stepped in to decide that market forces - that would have forced some companies to liquidate their assets and go out of business - shouldn't apply to certain companies. By propping up these companies, they prolonged the consequences of the "crisis."
biccat wrote:
A free market doesn't mean no government, it means no government involvement in the market except for evenhanded taxation and enforcement of private property and contractual rights. Essentially, it's a market that is free to operate according to market principles, not according to the whims of government.
But the whims of government determine taxation, which has a necessary impact on the market; even handed or not. Then you have to think about the way contractual and property rights are defined, and how those definitions impact the market, and how they will necessarily differ according to the whims of government.
At least if we're assuming that the government and the market are independent entities, which is not the case.
biccat wrote:
Once government starts limiting the market, such as by discriminatory taxation (either on goods or people) it becomes less free.
All taxation is discriminatory. Well, all taxation except a perfectly balanced code in which all people of all income levels pay a tax which is precisely commensurate with their ability to pay; leading to an effective individual tax burden which is identical to the average tax burden.
biccat wrote:
In the case of the 2008 bailout, the government stepped in to decide that market forces - that would have forced some companies to liquidate their assets and go out of business - shouldn't apply to certain companies. By propping up these companies, they prolonged the consequences of the "crisis."
Obviously that is debatable, though the auspices of a serious debate on the matter are beyond the scope of this forum.
There are no real cuts in this deal only the possibility of reducing spending in the future and only if the next congress allows it.
Nothing was solved with this deal. Both sides got to keep their talking points going into the next election. Democrats can say you must elect them or your entitlements will be slashed and Grandma will have to move in with you. Republicans can say you must elect them or Democrats will tax you right out of your house and give the money to the person you hate the most.
The deal is no deal. Even the triggers can be removed by a vote of 60 senators in the next congress, which has happened before.
I'm afraid the only way we can get a solution to long term debt is to be thrown into the grips of a great depression or other similar calamity. We need to bottom out beofre we can go back up and we are far from bottoming out.
I blame the citizens of the USA. You get the government you deserve and the apathy of the majority has driven the parties into the arms of the radical wings on both sides. Loud voices get the media's attention and drives the procurement of money for campaigns. A politician will get more money if they make you afraid of it rather than solving it. There is big money in fear and very little money in solutions.
dogma wrote:But the whims of government determine taxation, which has a necessary impact on the market; even handed or not. Then you have to think about the way contractual and property rights are defined, and how those definitions impact the market, and how they will necessarily differ according to the whims of government.
You're partially right. While government taxation affects the market, it doesn't necessarily control how the market allocates resources.
If the government taxes all economic activity at (for example) 5%, then the only effect on the market is to slow growth. But if they tax Product A at 5% and Product B at 6%, then the market will respond accordingly, because Product B has been made artificially more expensive than Product A.
And most governments will place legal limits on what can be sold, which increases those transaction costs as well. For example, marijuana is sold above fair market price because of the artificial price increase imposed by the government. Same with prostitution, murder-for-hire, and a host of other products and services.
dogma wrote:At least if we're assuming that the government and the market are independent entities, which is not the case.
It's not the case only if you assume that the government has a role in regulating the market, and that the market has an impact on government regulation.
Of course, I'm assuming you're using the term "independent" to mean "separate" or "distinct" instead of "not dependent." Your statement is true given the latter, but not the former.
dogma wrote:All taxation is discriminatory. Well, all taxation except a perfectly balanced code in which all people of all income levels pay a tax which is precisely commensurate with their ability to pay; leading to an effective individual tax burden which is identical to the average tax burden.
That is incorrect. Fair taxation isn't "commensurate with ability to pay" but rather "commensurate with expenditures." That is, assuming you're adopting the theory that government should be representative, rather than the theory that the government is a market actor with exclusive authority.
But when taxation is nondiscriminatory as to the market, the market is more free.
dogma wrote:Obviously that is debatable, though the auspices of a serious debate on the matter are beyond the scope of this forum.
Presumably you're referring to the second sentence. I would hope you're not seriously arguing that the first part is 'debatable'. And the second isn't even that debatable, from an economic perspective.
biccat wrote:
You're partially right. While government taxation affects the market, it doesn't necessarily control how the market allocates resources.
If the government taxes all economic activity at (for example) 5%, then the only effect on the market is to slow growth. But if they tax Product A at 5% and Product B at 6%, then the market will respond accordingly, because Product B has been made artificially more expensive than Product A.
Those are both controls on how the market allocates resources, one is simply more specific than the other. When you increase the price of all goods you artificially distort their value relative to one another. For example, a 50% increase in the price of both necessities and luxuries is going to sharply decrease the number of luxuries purchased, while the amount of necessities purchased will hold relatively constant; all things being equal.
biccat wrote:
And most governments will place legal limits on what can be sold, which increases those transaction costs as well. For example, marijuana is sold above fair market price because of the artificial price increase imposed by the government. Same with prostitution, murder-for-hire, and a host of other products and services.
Right, and those limits follow from the way in which contractual and property rights are defined, which is why I noted that a state limited to contractual and property rights still has a necessary impact on the market.
We're not really making different points, the divergence is my claim that the market (in the capitalist sense, anarchist "markets" are different) and the government are interdependent, and cannot be separated; which is really just a difference of emphasis. Or so it seems.
biccat wrote:
It's not the case only if you assume that the government has a role in regulating the market, and that the market has an impact on government regulation.
Of course, I'm assuming you're using the term "independent" to mean "separate" or "distinct" instead of "not dependent." Your statement is true given the latter, but not the former.
It is indeed the former, and it isn't so much an assumption as an observation of necessity. The market, again in the capitalist sense, necessarily depends on the existence of governance. Anarchist "markets" do not, because anarchist "markets" are essentially just euphemisms for existence (they also tend to produce governance, though).
biccat wrote:
That is incorrect. Fair taxation isn't "commensurate with ability to pay" but rather "commensurate with expenditures."
Both definitions are commensurate with the definition of "fair", so I'm not sure what you objection is, other than an ideological one.
biccat wrote:
That is, assuming you're adopting the theory that government should be representative, rather than the theory that the government is a market actor with exclusive authority.
Those are not mutually exclusive, and in fact must coexist. If the state has no exclusive market authority, then the government is simply a corporation with a large amount of power, and therefore not a government at all.
biccat wrote:
But when taxation is nondiscriminatory as to the market, the market is more free.
Again, taxation cannot be nondiscriminatory in any practical sense, and is arguably discriminatory by nature in a theoretical sense.
biccat wrote:
Presumably you're referring to the second sentence. I would hope you're not seriously arguing that the first part is 'debatable'. And the second isn't even that debatable, from an economic perspective.
The second sentence, yes. And it is debatable, unless that's some other activity in which many economists have been engaged since the crisis, in particular, and for something like 50 years regarding the general principle behind intervention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarthDiggler wrote:
The deal is no deal. Even the triggers can be removed by a vote of 60 senators in the next congress, which has happened before.
Any trigger can be removed by the passage of repealing legislation, so the requirement of 60 senatorial votes isn't a huge issue. In fact, it might be a more difficult hurdle than obtaining majority in the House and Senate, under certain conditions.
dogma wrote:Those are both controls on how the market allocates resources, one is simply more specific than the other. When you increase the price of all goods you artificially distort their value relative to one another. For example, a 50% increase in the price of both necessities and luxuries is going to sharply decrease the number of luxuries purchased, while the amount of necessities purchased will hold relatively constant; all things being equal.
First of all, there really aren't sharp differences between "luxuries" and "necessities." Taxation makes everything more expensive, so the market may shift to accomodate higher levels of taxation. While this may make certain goods more expensive relative to their perceived value, it's not based on government discrimination for or against certain products.
dogma wrote:Right, and those limits follow from the way in which contractual and property rights are defined, which is why I noted that a state limited to contractual and property rights still has a necessary impact on the market.
While I agree that such a state would have a necessary impact, the market would still be described as "more free" than one in which the government heavily regulates production, sale, and other aspects of the market. The freedom of a market isn't absolute but a relative scale.
dogma wrote:It is indeed the former, and it isn't so much an assumption as an observation of necessity. The market, again in the capitalist sense, necessarily depends on the existence of governance. Anarchist "markets" do not, because anarchist "markets" are essentially just euphemisms for existence (they also tend to produce governance, though).
I'm glad that you acknowledge that markets create government. But the two are only intertwined to a limited extent. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that you could have a government without a market (for a time at least), and there are plenty of 'markets' that exist without government. For example, drug trade and prostitution are underground markets that function reasonably well without governments.
edit: the market part functions reasonably well, in that there are relatively stable rates for a known quality of goods or services and market competition has created an array of choices for consumers.
dogma wrote:Both definitions are commensurate with the definition of "fair", so I'm not sure what you objection is, other than an ideological one.
Ideological, only to the extent of your implied assertion that only "ability to pay" is a "fair" system of taxation. But like I said, that depends on how you see a government.
If the government is an equal provider of services, then what is "fair" (not providing unjust enrichment) is either fixed contribution (everyone pays X) or a percentage contribution (everyone pays X% of their income).
However, if you see the government as a market actor with exclusive authority, then what is "fair" is the amount of benefit that each person draws from the government services. In this case, a person without a car should contribute less than a person who drives daily for the maintenance and provision of roads.
That is, taking the basic assumption that free riders are "unfair."
dogma wrote:The second sentence, yes. And it is debatable, unless that's some other activity in which many economists have been engaged since the crisis, in particular, and for something like 50 years regarding the general principle behind intervention.
I started a response, but I think you're right that such a debate is beyond the scope of this forum.
biccat wrote:
First of all, there really aren't sharp differences between "luxuries" and "necessities." Taxation makes everything more expensive, so the market may shift to accomodate higher levels of taxation. While this may make certain goods more expensive relative to their perceived value, it's not based on government discrimination for or against certain products.
The differentiation between luxuries and necessities is determined by the purchaser, obviously, but it would be foolish to believe that a (successful) state is not aware that such a distinction exists. If the state wanted citizens to cut down on luxury expenditures, for whatever reason, then artificially increasing the costs of all goods would accomplish this. This is a fine-grained example certainly, but the point I'm attempting to make is that taxation is tacit to market control because individual goods do not exist in isolation.
There are also psychological variables, though they tend to be minor concerns.
biccat wrote:
While I agree that such a state would have a necessary impact, the market would still be described as "more free" than one in which the government heavily regulates production, sale, and other aspects of the market. The freedom of a market isn't absolute but a relative scale.
I agree with that.
biccat wrote:
I'm glad that you acknowledge that markets create government.
I do, though the inverse can also be true if the state is particularly heavy handed. Chile is a good example of this.
biccat wrote:
But the two are only intertwined to a limited extent. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that you could have a government without a market (for a time at least), and there are plenty of 'markets' that exist without government. For example, drug trade and prostitution are underground markets that function reasonably well without governments.
edit: the market part functions reasonably well, in that there are relatively stable rates for a known quality of goods or services and market competition has created an array of choices for consumers.
The Soviet Union was able to minimize the effect of the market, but it never vanished, at least if we're accepting black markets as legitimate markets.
Additionally, I would contend that black markets exist under governance because of the effect of prohibitions. In essence, prostitution and the drug trade may be underground, but they are governed.
biccat wrote:
Ideological, only to the extent of your implied assertion that only "ability to pay" is a "fair" system of taxation. But like I said, that depends on how you see a government.
It was meant only as a generic catch-all term for fair taxation. Showing my American liberal education I suppose.
biccat wrote:
If the government is an equal provider of services, then what is "fair" (not providing unjust enrichment) is either fixed contribution (everyone pays X) or a percentage contribution (everyone pays X% of their income).
That follows, though I would contend that services provided is difficult to measure because of aggregate social effects. The monopoly on legitimate force, for example, is quite valuable to the middle and above classes but that value is difficult to determine.
biccat wrote:
However, if you see the government as a market actor with exclusive authority, then what is "fair" is the amount of benefit that each person draws from the government services. In this case, a person without a car should contribute less than a person who drives daily for the maintenance and provision of roads.
They could have written in the bill that triggers could only be repealed by a 2/3rd majority. But that's only if they were serious about the bill and I know the super majority to remove triggers was proposed but not accepted in tthe final bill.
DarthDiggler wrote:They could have written in the bill that triggers could only be repealed by a 2/3rd majority. But that's only if they were serious about the bill and I know the super majority to remove triggers was proposed but not accepted in tthe final bill.
There have been super-majorities in Congress before, so you would likely have been just as upset. At least given what you said earlier.
dogma wrote:Additionally, I would contend that black markets exist under governance because of the effect of prohibitions. In essence, prostitution and the drug trade may be underground, but they are governed.
Black markets exist because of the prohibitions, but are not subject to government because there's no property protection (you can't call the cops if someone steals your weed) and no enforcement of contracts (if the guy you hired fails to kill your wife, the courts won't enforce the agreement). Without these basic functions it's hard to say that black markets are in any way governed or subject to local governance.
biccat wrote:
Black markets exist because of the prohibitions, but are not subject to government because there's no property protection (you can't call the cops if someone steals your weed) and no enforcement of contracts (if the guy you hired fails to kill your wife, the courts won't enforce the agreement). Without these basic functions it's hard to say that black markets are in any way governed or subject to local governance.
You can certainly call the cops if someone steals your weed, you simply won't get it back because reporting such a theft if basically just reporting drug possession and the assorted criminal activities that generally go with theft.
In the case of the hit contract the court will not enforce the contract as stipulated by the contractors, but it will enforce it as stipulated by its own interests (arrest both contractors) which is no different from any other enforcement of contract.
This all goes back to the definition of property rights and contractual rights, and how they relate to state behavior.
dogma wrote:You can certainly call the cops if someone steals your weed, you simply won't get it back because reporting such a theft if basically just reporting drug possession and the assorted criminal activities that generally go with theft.
That's not really protecting someone's property interest, is it? A property interest is the right to exclude others from your exclusive control over property. If someone steals you're weed, they are interfering with your exclusive control. Neither the police nor the courts will return to you your property, but will engage in their own violation of your personal property.
dogma wrote:In the case of the hit contract the court will not enforce the contract as stipulated by the contractors, but it will enforce it as stipulated by its own interests (arrest both contractors) which is no different from any other enforcement of contract.
Again, that's not enforcing the agreement between the parties, that is substituting the court's will for the will of the court. Contractual enforcement is when the court holds the parties to do what they agreed to do so that the parties are in the position they would have been had the contract been performed (or, in certain cases, not entered into, or to prevent unjust enrichment).
dogma wrote:This all goes back to the definition of property rights and contractual rights, and how they relate to state behavior.
Yes, it does. But the way you've defined property and contract rights eliminates the interests of the parties and substitutes the state's interest as controlling. I don't know where you get this definition (presumably from a socialist or progressive theory of justice), but I don't think you'll find it's widely accepted.
biccat wrote:
That's not really protecting someone's property interest, is it? A property interest is the right to exclude others from your exclusive control over property. If someone steals you're weed, they are interfering with your exclusive control. Neither the police nor the courts will return to you your property, but will engage in their own violation of your personal property.
Property interest and property rights are not the same thing to my mind. I generally subscribe to the notion that rights do not exist without social, or at least legal, consensus. So, basically, you have no property right to weed no matter how much you feel that is the case, because an insufficient number, or at least the wrong, people disagree.
biccat wrote:
Again, that's not enforcing the agreement between the parties, that is substituting the court's will for the will of the court. Contractual enforcement is when the court holds the parties to do what they agreed to do so that the parties are in the position they would have been had the contract been performed (or, in certain cases, not entered into, or to prevent unjust enrichment).
It is enforcing the regulations that are pertinent to the contract between the two parties, which is really the meat of contract enforcement. Governments don't enforce contracts, they enforce their regulation of them.
biccat wrote:
Yes, it does. But the way you've defined property and contract rights eliminates the interests of the parties and substitutes the state's interest as controlling. I don't know where you get this definition (presumably from a socialist or progressive theory of justice), but I don't think you'll find it's widely accepted.
You misunderstand. I'm arguing that the state's interests control the state's actions, not that they necessarily override individual interests, though they generally do as a result of power differentials. I'm not particularly concerned with justice at all.
dogma wrote:Property interest and property rights are not the same thing to my mind. I generally subscribe to the notion that rights do not exist without social, or at least legal, consensus. So, basically, you have no property right to weed no matter how much you feel that is the case, because an insufficient number, or at least the wrong, people disagree.
OK, so you disagree with the basic theory of property. I suppose it makes sense from a practicality standpoint, but the underlying theory of property is that it's an exclusive right that exists independent of government action.
I'm not sure how you get from this point to the idea that markets create government, however. If property isn't an innate right, then there can be no market without a government to recognize this right. Therefore, governments must have existed before markets to define the property rights being traded.
dogma wrote:It is enforcing the regulations that are pertinent to the contract between the two parties, which is really the meat of contract enforcement. Governments don't enforce contracts, they enforce their regulation of them.
And again, you're disagreeing with the underlying theory of contracts, that an agreement between parties is enforceable unless there is some reason not to enforce the agreement. Unless the government has an interest in not enforcing the contract, the government will enforce it. Moreso, the ability to compel performance is generally held by the government and not by private parties.
I understand that yours might be an acceptable alternative in legal philosophy, but it really isn't relevant to legal or economic theory.
dogma wrote:You misunderstand. I'm arguing that the state's interests control the state's actions, not that they necessarily override individual interests, though they generally do as a result of power differentials. I'm not particularly concerned with justice at all.
The idea that the state's interests control the state's actions was used as a rationale in Shelley v. Kraemer where the court reasoned that judicial enforcement of a discriminatory land covenant sufficied to constitute state action. The argument was as follows:
The state is prohibited from racially discriminatory action. When the state enforces an agreement, it is required to enforce it according to its terms. By enforcing the agreement by its terms, the state is acting. Therefore, the state is prohibited from enforcing a racially discriminatory action.
This rationale has been mostly rejected by our legal system. When the court enforces an agreement between parties, it will generally not consider the enforcement state action.
biccat wrote:
OK, so you disagree with the basic theory of property. I suppose it makes sense from a practicality standpoint, but the underlying theory of property is that it's an exclusive right that exists independent of government action.
That is my disagreement with the theory, yes. I am, in general, more interested with how people actually behave than how others want them to behave.
biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how you get from this point to the idea that markets create government, however. If property isn't an innate right, then there can be no market without a government to recognize this right. Therefore, governments must have existed before markets to define the property rights being traded.
Not necessarily, note that I said rights were contingent upon social considerations as well (and really for the most part). Government becomes involved at the level institutionalization, and occasionally codification; though occasionally the latter precedes the former.
I'll take this time to say that I don't generally think of these things in a linear fashion, though whether or not that approach holds water will depend on my defense.
biccat wrote:
And again, you're disagreeing with the underlying theory of contracts, that an agreement between parties is enforceable unless there is some reason not to enforce the agreement. Unless the government has an interest in not enforcing the contract, the government will enforce it. Moreso, the ability to compel performance is generally held by the government and not by private parties.
I understand that yours might be an acceptable alternative in legal philosophy, but it really isn't relevant to legal or economic theory.
I don't disagree with the idea that a contract is enforceable. I disagree with the idea that it is enforceable only on the terms of the contracting parties. The terms of the enforcer are also relevant. Often the third set of terms is dictated by the original two, but it doesn't need to be the case, and the amount of divergence is governed by the "will" of the enforcer.
biccat wrote:
The idea that the state's interests control the state's actions was used as a rationale in Shelley v. Kraemer where the court reasoned that judicial enforcement of a discriminatory land covenant sufficied to constitute state action. The argument was as follows:
The state is prohibited from racially discriminatory action.
When the state enforces an agreement, it is required to enforce it according to its terms.
By enforcing the agreement by its terms, the state is acting.
Therefore, the state is prohibited from enforcing a racially discriminatory action.
This rationale has been mostly rejected by our legal system. When the court enforces an agreement between parties, it will generally not consider the enforcement state action.
Just to be clear, when I refer to states I am doing so in the broad sense; ie. nation-states.
In any case, what a state is required to do by law is not necessarily consistent with its interests. I am arguing that the state, which in the case of your example would be inclusive of the Supreme Court, has a set of interests which control its actions (in the case of the Court this includes precedent and personal bias).
Also, I'm not particularly concerned with our legal system because, quite honestly, law in general does not intend to be descriptive, but prescriptive (or postscriptive, as the case varies). The court may not consider its enforcement to be state action, but from a standpoint of description it most certainly is.
dogma wrote:I don't disagree with the idea that a contract is enforceable. I disagree with the idea that it is enforceable only on the terms of the contracting parties. The terms of the enforcer are also relevant. Often the third set of terms is dictated by the original two, but it doesn't need to be the case, and the amount of divergence is governed by the "will" of the enforcer.
So it's your position that the government is its own unique entity, rather than a collection of individuals exercising force according to a set of governing principles? Because that appears to be the core difference between "liberal" and "conservative" positions (in general). I don't view government as a separate entity that has its own interests. The only interests it has are those of the people.
dogma wrote:Just to be clear, when I refer to states I am doing so in the broad sense; ie. nation-states.
So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.
dogma wrote:In any case, what a state is required to do by law is not necessarily consistent with its interests. I am arguing that the state, which in the case of your example would be inclusive of the Supreme Court, has a set of interests which control its actions (in the case of the Court this includes precedent and personal bias).
And I would disagree. The interests of the state are and must be coextensive with the interests of the people, but only to the extent that exercise of the state's power is coextensive with its authority. When a state exceeds its authority, or acts against the interests of the people, you get either political correction or a revolution. Which, coincidentally, demonstrates the fallability of construing the state as a separate entity. The state only exists so long as the people support the state.
dogma wrote:Also, I'm not particularly concerned with our legal system because, quite honestly, law in general does not intend to be descriptive, but prescriptive (or postscriptive, as the case varies). The court may not consider its enforcement to be state action, but from a standpoint of description it most certainly is.
And again, I disagree. The state's sole power (ultimately) is the authority to use force to compel action without threat of repercussion from a higher entity. The Court in enforcing a contract is using the threat of force to compel a person not to do what the government wants, or is in the government's best interest, but rather to do what was agreed to by the parties.
I suppose you could say that legal equality is the interest of the state that is being advanced here, but that cedes (IMO) too much power to the government. Any action that it takes or fails to take is an exercise of its power. But that ignores the very real limits on the power of government. A government only has power to act to the extent that its actions are not outside the tolerable scope of internal opposition.
biccat wrote:
So it's your position that the government is its own unique entity, rather than a collection of individuals exercising force according to a set of governing principles? Because that appears to be the core difference between "liberal" and "conservative" positions (in general). I don't view government as a separate entity that has its own interests. The only interests it has are those of the people.
Yes, it is my position that collections of people have interests distinct from the individuals (at least the individuals outside groups, it is questionable that such beings exist, but that is another thread) that constitute them; whether they be corporations, families, or governments.
biccat wrote:
So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.
Of course not, but in current practice there is a distinction.
biccat wrote:
And I would disagree. The interests of the state are and must be coextensive with the interests of the people, but only to the extent that exercise of the state's power is coextensive with its authority. When a state exceeds its authority, or acts against the interests of the people, you get either political correction or a revolution.
Or oppression. Again, the point is that the state, and its interests, are separate from the interests of the people (if such a thing exists).
biccat wrote:
Which, coincidentally, demonstrates the fallability of construing the state as a separate entity. The state only exists so long as the people support the state.
Or the state can hold the people at gun point.
Keep in mind I am not speaking to what the state should do, but what they can, and have done.
biccat wrote:
And again, I disagree. The state's sole power (ultimately) is the authority to use force to compel action without threat of repercussion from a higher entity. The Court in enforcing a contract is using the threat of force to compel a person not to do what the government wants, or is in the government's best interest, but rather to do what was agreed to by the parties.
I disagree along the same lines as above. The state (and the court is always part of the state) cares about the state, and only about others when they become relevant to the state.
biccat wrote:
I suppose you could say that legal equality is the interest of the state that is being advanced here, but that cedes (IMO) too much power to the government. Any action that it takes or fails to take is an exercise of its power. But that ignores the very real limits on the power of government. A government only has power to act to the extent that its actions are not outside the tolerable scope of internal opposition.
That is true but, as history has shown, the tolerable scope of internal opposition is not small thing.
dogma wrote:Yes, it is my position that collections of people have interests distinct from the individuals (at least the individuals outside groups, it is questionable that such beings exist, but that is another thread) that constitute them; whether they be corporations, families, or governments.
Having different interests is not the same as the state being distinct from the individuals who make up the state. After all, it's individuals who make up the structure of the state. The "interests of the state" are therefore only those that are either expressed to the state agents or those that the agents themselves believe should be adopted.
The state has no ability to develop its own interests. Although a state agent may believe that the interests of the state are different than or even averse to his own interests.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:
So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.
Of course not, but in current practice there is a distinction.
Not as much as you'd expect. The states are individual sovereigns (legally at least). It's a very unique relationship.
dogma wrote:Or the state can hold the people at gun point.
Keep in mind I am not speaking to what the state should do, but what they can, and have done.
...
That is true but, as history has shown, the tolerable scope of internal opposition is not small thing.
You should also consider that there are a lot more "former governments" than there are "current governments." Revolution, even in the modern world, isn't inescapable.
dogma wrote:The state (and the court is always part of the state) cares about the state, and only about others when they become relevant to the state.
Now you're outright ignoring the right of petition. Everyone has the right to access the state's mechanism for resolving dispute regardless of whether they're relevant to the state. An immense amount of litigation and state power is engaged in and expended that is utterly irrelevant to the state.
biccat wrote:
Having different interests is not the same as the state being distinct from the individuals who make up the state. After all, it's individuals who make up the structure of the state. The "interests of the state" are therefore only those that are either expressed to the state agents or those that the agents themselves believe should be adopted.
You're conflating nation and state, which is, if I'm honest, a common conservative mistake. The state, as in those people who make up the state, have a set of interests which are not identical to those interests which are expressed by those people who exist in the nation the state represents.
biccat wrote:
The state has no ability to develop its own interests. Although a state agent may believe that the interests of the state are different than or even averse to his own interests.
Sure it does. If any collective body has the ability to develop an interest, then all collective bodies possess this property; nations and states included.
biccat wrote:
Not as much as you'd expect. The states are individual sovereigns (legally at least). It's a very unique relationship.
Sort of. The extrapolation of Amendments changed that.
biccat wrote:
You should also consider that there are a lot more "former governments" than there are "current governments." Revolution, even in the modern world, isn't inescapable.
Sure, the Middle East, among other regions, has shown this. However, that doesn't change the fact that the state can gun down whomever opposes it if it sees fit. Such action might shorten the lifespan of the state, or lengthen it, it is a matter of circumstance.
biccat wrote:
Now you're outright ignoring the right of petition. Everyone has the right to access the state's mechanism for resolving dispute regardless of whether they're relevant to the state. An immense amount of litigation and state power is engaged in and expended that is utterly irrelevant to the state.
Yes, and that is a mechanism of control. Said people are relevant because they're angry, and because the state said their anger is important.
biccat wrote:What if I choose: "Please substantiate your claim that the Republicans wanted an 85/15 split and the Democrats wanted a 50/50 split."
Is that a valid choice?
It's necessary if you're unaware of the source of either figure, but that in itself is something of a concern.
Anyhow, from the Economist;
"Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence." http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600
As for the 50/50 split Democrats might have held as their ideal, I already explained you're free to reject that idea if you want. Doing so would mean accepting that Democrats wanted more spending cuts than tax increases, and would force you to accept they are, in fact, a quite conservative bunch and nothing like the socialists or 'tax and spend liberals' you've liked to compare them to in the past. So that's one option.
The other option is to continue to pretend they're socialists who just want to raise taxes and spend it on special projects, but they compromised a whole lot to get this bill passed. If you take that option, then you need to realise your claim that the Democrats were being jerks unwilling to compromise is utter nonsense, and it was the Republicans who took this to the 11th hour to give up just 2% from their ideal position.
So, again, choose carefully.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Then I have no idea what you mean when you say "capitalism."
Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.
That's nonsense, and not supported by any economist, even the far right economists don't pretend that any government involvement is bad.
Thing is, people who actually study markets for a living talk about perfect competition as the best of all markets. These perfect markets rely on things like perfect information and no dominant buyer or supplier. It should take all of about two seconds to realise these things happen naturally very rarely, and tend not to last very long when they do.
At which point you realise the best way to move towards these ideal markets is to have some level of government intervention. It may just be regulation (the closest thing we have to a perfect market is the stock exchange, and that's regulated like nothing else on earth). It may in some situation necessitate government acting as a buyer or seller.
You really need to understand this idea common among the self-declared economic conservatives that the best market has no government intervention absolutely does not exist among economists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:A free market doesn't mean no government, it means no government involvement in the market except for evenhanded taxation and enforcement of private property and contractual rights.
A free market means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. Because it has no real meaning, because it isn't a term economists actually consider, because they recognise the need for government intervention in economics.
In the case of the 2008 bailout, the government stepped in to decide that market forces - that would have forced some companies to liquidate their assets and go out of business - shouldn't apply to certain companies. By propping up these companies, they prolonged the consequences of the "crisis."
This idea that there is a given level of harm, that can be suffered like removing a bandaid, slowly or all at once, is complete nonsense. Economics at the macro level is based around aggregate demand, and the realisation that system shocks impact throughout the economy, causing deficit spirals (less demand means less supply means less demand means less supply....). Once this is realised, it becomes plain and simple common sense to want to reduce the waste accompanied with the boom/bust cycle, and look for steady, sustained growth.
The Austrian school that you're quoting was built around pretending no such thing as the business cycle existed (and that a system shock could simply be gotten over with quickly, and that no such thing as recession existed without government) and spent the first half of the 20th century getting proved wrong about it, a lot. They were defeated in academia long ago, and no exist by preaching to people who don't know anything about economics. Don't be one of those rubes.
dogma wrote:You're conflating nation and state, which is, if I'm honest, a common conservative mistake. The state, as in those people who make up the state, have a set of interests which are not identical to those interests which are expressed by those people who exist in the nation the state represents.
Not confusing the two, I was referring to (for lack of a more specific term), the Apparatchik. The State, that is the government, can only act according to its agents.
dogma wrote:Sure it does. If any collective body has the ability to develop an interest, then all collective bodies possess this property; nations and states included.
There may be an interest that is held by the people who make up the government (Apparatchik), but these are not necessarily the same as the interests of the states.
dogma wrote:Sort of. The extrapolation of Amendments changed that.
Right. Sort of. There's a lot that can be written on this, particularly whether state soverengty still exists de facto or if it's a convenient legal fiction. And, probably more importantly, whether it's a good idea to maintain the legal concept of state sovereignty, regardless of whether it still exists as a factual matter.
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Now you're outright ignoring the right of petition. Everyone has the right to access the state's mechanism for resolving dispute regardless of whether they're relevant to the state. An immense amount of litigation and state power is engaged in and expended that is utterly irrelevant to the state.
Yes, and that is a mechanism of control. Said people are relevant because they're angry, and because the state said their anger is important.
I was discussing the right of petition more broadly, that is the right to ask for government assistance, for example in enforcing contracts. This doesn't necessarily result from anger (even if limited strictly to petition against government acts), and in many cases may simply be two parties seeking a neutral arbitrator in a dispute. There's no threat to the government if it grants or denies such a petition, but the right of petition is taken up as a convenience to the people as part of the operation of the state.
Most of the debt is caused by the Bush tax cuts, the medicaid drug act and the Iraq war, all of which they voted for with NO PLAN TO FUND THEM.
Despite nearly a decade of Republican mismanagement there were no signs that our debt had suddenly become unsustainable until they found it was a useful weapon to hold the government hostage for the second time this year.
The Republicans have NO CREDIBILITY on this issue. None. They ran up this debt and now refuse to discuss any way to pay for it, except on the backs of the poor and working class.
sebster wrote:"Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence."
http://www.economist.com/node/18928600?story_id=18928600
"Further, they show that the degree of success correlates to a larger share of spending cuts"
Error by omission. The above quote is from your second link.
The paper didn't argue that the optimum balance was 85/15, which you would have noticed if you read it. It showed that the emperical evidence showed that the average successful program was 85/15. It didn't "make[] the argument that the optimum balance for spending cuts & revenue increases is 85/15."
So again, unless you can find some support for your underlying assumption, I feel no need to answer your question.
Also, keep in mind that there is more than simply addressing how the reduction would be distributed. If Obama proposed reducing the debt by $100 with $50 in spending cuts and $50 in revenue, that would be a "50/50 split between spending cuts and revenue increases." Neither side (assuming we're still ignoring the Cut Cap and Balance bill) proposed dealing with the entire deficit, both were dealing with a portion of the deficit.
biccat wrote:
Not confusing the two, I was referring to (for lack of a more specific term), the Apparatchik. The State, that is the government, can only act according to its agents.
I agree with that formulation of your point, but I still maintain that groups have unique interests that have to be accounted for either by according them to the group, or a plasticene self; ie. a self that changes according to identity.
Admittedly, I did not offer this alternative before. In my experience it merely confuses the conversation.
biccat wrote:
Right. Sort of. There's a lot that can be written on this, particularly whether state soverengty still exists de facto or if it's a convenient legal fiction. And, probably more importantly, whether it's a good idea to maintain the legal concept of state sovereignty, regardless of whether it still exists as a factual matter.
If nothing else it should be fairly clear where I fall on, at least, the former continuum.
biccat wrote:
I was discussing the right of petition more broadly, that is the right to ask for government assistance, for example in enforcing contracts. This doesn't necessarily result from anger (even if limited strictly to petition against government acts), and in many cases may simply be two parties seeking a neutral arbitrator in a dispute. There's no threat to the government if it grants or denies such a petition, but the right of petition is taken up as a convenience to the people as part of the operation of the state.
When I say "anger" I mean "generally dissatisfied with the state of relevant affairs" "unsettled" may have been a better form of shorthand.
Either way, when one petitions the state, even if seeking only neutral arbitration, the state is moved to act only in the sense that the interests of the state, or the Apparatchiks, compel it to do so. To speak directly, the threat to the government, in your example, is that it will be confronted with additional requests for mediation.
Kilkrazy wrote:and we've got a tough plan in place for dealing with the problem.
Yes, sack everyone in the public sector and pay the private sector less to do the same work. Because that always works out soooo well.
You'll have to excuse me. I'm a bitter Southampton City Council employee who was told that although his pay would be cut by 4.5%, "there would be no further redundancies". And the second the paycut was implemented, "Well, obviously there's going to have to be some redundancies." If the leader of Southampton Council is reading this, I am going to key your jag on my way out
On the plus side, if you're a political partisan of any stripe, you should find this useful. Virtually every party and personality involved in this fiasco can be legitimately blamed for this, to some degree or other. I look forward to a great deal of selective, self-serving and partial quotes from the report which puts the shine on this you'd prefer.
Ah well, I'm sure there's no room for error here. If the prestigious S&P, which gave a sterling rating to both Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers virtually up to the moment each dropped dead, says it's so, it's so.
I don't know the answer to those things. I pay little attention to the international side of economics; I know Greece is screwed up, but never looked into why.
I really don't understand how S&P decided to downgrade the US credit. The rating is based on the chance of default by the organization issuing the debt. In the case of the United States, there's (almost) no chance of default on the debt, because we issue our debt in USD. We will always have the ability to repay the debt...you just might get it back in severely inflated dollars.
biccat wrote:
I really don't understand how S&P decided to downgrade the US credit. The rating is based on the chance of default by the organization issuing the debt. In the case of the United States, there's (almost) no chance of default on the debt, because we issue our debt in USD. We will always have the ability to repay the debt...you just might get it back in severely inflated dollars.
Sovereign credit ratings are little different. In general these ratings are still based on the risk of default, but because there is essentially no means of taking actions against a sovereign debtor the ratings tend to be based on, in practice, political concerns regarding the service of debt.
There's also the notion that, because USD is the world reserve, the US should have special standards regarding its credit rating.
