Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The basic problem is that neither the "Grand Bargain" nor the "Fiscal Cliff" are real solutions to anything. Both harm the economy while failing to eliminate the deficit. Of the two, the Fiscal Cliff is worse. It cuts more from government spending in the short term while raising less revenue in the long run (because it's short term- it's a one time only change that will raise $3 trillion at most). Obama's version of the Grand Bargain is targeting $4 trillion over about ten years, with spending cuts to revenue increase ratio varying from 2.5-1 to 4-1 depending on which version it is. One study I saw (Bloomberg) estimates that we actually need 6-9 trillion. Meanwhile, neither plan does anything to address job growth, or the spiraling cost of healthcare. What we really need is another stimulus package, a way to rein in healthcare, and deficit reduction plan that spreads the pain out over about 20 years.
Given that no one in Washington has put such a plan on the table, the question is do we hope for a fiscal cliff, expecting that a second recession will finally force politicians to address real reform, or do we hope for a Grand Bargain, since that will do less immediate economic damage giving us more time to fix things?
edited 4th Dec '12 10:48:48 AM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart....You got your numbers right. The Grand Bargain cuts 3 trillion dollars, mainly focused on welfare, while the Fiscal Cliff cuts only 1.2 trillion dollars which is spread out across the board. The Grand Bargain ends up saving us 4 trillion dollars, 3 trillion in spending reduction and 1 trillion in tax increases.
Again, for what feels like the dozenth time, the Fiscal cliff is not actually a cliff. It's more like a slight ditch. It doesn't take effect all at once, and if we go over it the Democrats will have a much stronger bargaining position. Which means if the GOP doesn't take a deal now, they'll find themselves in the ditch.
So yeah, at this point it looks like going over the "cliff" is a better strategy than the Grand Bargain that no one is making.
Which, of course, also explains why the GOP are hyping up the Fiscal Cliff like it's the end of the world, since they are trying their damn best to convince the people that the Democrats are being unreasonable when it was really the Republicans who are.
They will accept the "Grand" Bargain at the last moment and then justify it to their voters by saying that they didn't want to go over the "dreaded" fiscal cliff and that the Democrats forced them to accept their deal.
edited 4th Dec '12 12:05:02 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyOne major correction: debt is not an input to that system but a consequence. Debt is what you get when expenditures exceed revenues over time. We've repeatedly said why it is not bad in and of itself, but the fact that people consider it so is part of the comprehension problem.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Selecting to not raise the debt ceiling without actually balancing the federal budget is something of a Divide by Zero fiscally speaking. It might even be unconstitutional under the "full faith and credit" clause.
From a financial perspective, it's roughly akin to a homeowner with unlimited cash abruptly choosing to stop paying his mortgage, only in this case it's the largest debtor in the world. To deliberately default on the federal debt would crash the global economy. The Great Depression would be a fond memory by comparison. The prepper thread would be a good place to hang out.
A part of me hopes (as I did in 2011) that the Republicans play that game to its ultimate conclusion so that we do have a constitutional crisis and get this thing settled once and for all.
edited 4th Dec '12 12:56:56 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I would prefer that the debt ceiling be declared unconstitutional. This way Congress must pass a budget in order to constrain spending. I think it has an excellent chance of getting overturned, since Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to deliberately cause the U.S. to default.
edited 4th Dec '12 1:41:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The Republicans are the only reason the country even lost it's AAA credit rating after all by even hesitating to raise the debt ceiling. That's a huge blow that didn't need to happen with a clear group to blame. The people who lowered the credit rating said why they did.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
Article 1; Section 8; Line 1
Emphasis mine:
Are you in Joking Mode? Cause you're confusing me.
This part specifically can be used as a major part of getting the debt-ceiling declared unconstitutional.
edited 4th Dec '12 3:31:43 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Reagan was bad for the country, if only because this is his legacy. He left behind a party incapable of seeing taxation in a rational way.
Reagan himself wasn't fiscally irresponsible, and supply-side economics made sense when the top marginal rate was 70%+. However, Keynesian economics is the proven theory for recession and depression, and we have one of two political parties completely in denial about this.
I found this
to be a good read along the lines above.
To be fair, the New World Order is most likely to take over using handouts. Every respectable person knows that.
edited 4th Dec '12 3:50:10 PM by Zephid
I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.The fiscal cliff isn't really a cliff, but if we settled for that there is a very good chance it would cause a second recession.
The national debt, in and of itself does not harm us, but if it grows too large it will begin to harm the economy, and interfere with the delivery of services.
These things are overhyped, but they are still concerns.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Why is the new world order such a bad thing in the first place? A singular government is far more efficient than the 150+ we have now. Now obviously this only applies if it's democratically elected.
They are bad but not immediately so. Right now we need to focus on unemployment and workers being paid too low. If we fix that most of the other problems can be solved easily.
edited 4th Dec '12 4:17:51 PM by Kostya

edited 4th Dec '12 10:31:17 AM by deathpigeon