Skip to main content

July 14, 2011, 8:30 pm

Anarchists and Tasseled Loafers

By TIMOTHY EGAN

 

Who would put at risk, at a time when most people are hurting from a gasping economy, the monthly issuance of life-supporting funds for wounded veterans, disabled children, countless elderly couples living on barely $2,000 a month — all told, over 70 million checks that go out each month?

 

Who would risk pushing the livelihoods of businesses small and big off a cliff by an interest rate spike, possibly igniting a second recession as the credit-rating agencies have just suggested — essentially saying “blow your brains out, America,” as Warren Buffett phrased it?

 

Who would risk this anarchists’ storm, rather than a pass a formality: extending the borrowing authority of the United States so the country can pay bills from the past? Certainly, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, cannot find anyone so reckless in Washington. “Nobody is talking about not raising the debt ceiling,” he said last Sunday. “I haven’t heard that from anybody.”

 

Either he’s deaf to the roar on his right or he’s speaking exclusively to that diminishing other wing of his party, the Tasseled Loafers. Not only is Michele Bachmann, a leading Republican presidential candidate, saying a government default is nothing to worry about, but a core group of 59 House Republicans have indicated they will not raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances, according to House Speaker John Boehner.

 

That’s right: no matter how much President Obama gives them — from curbing entitlements to cuts in excess of $3 trillion — this cadre of radical Republicans is taking the burn-it-all-down position. They don’t want to see the terms of a deal because there is no deal they will accept. That’s their stated position.

 

With this step, what the chaos caucus has proven is that they have no interest in governing. They didn’t go to Washington to find solutions; they went there to destroy the place.

 

Symbolic of the Tasseled Loafers’ hold on power was that dinner of Rep. Paul Ryan last week, in which the House budget-writer shared a pair of $350 bottles of wine with a hedge fund manager and a free-market economist. When the story broke, he was embarrassed enough to issue a copy of his credit card receipt showing he paid for at least one of the bottles of 2004 Echezeaux grand cru Burgundy himself, and was not simply being courted in violation of lobbying rules.

 

I don’t care how rich guys spend their money, or even if a congressman pays as much for a single bottle of wine as some fellow Americans get for their weekly unemployment checks. Ryan is the architect of a budget that gives even more tax breaks for the corporate elite while making the elderly pay for diminished Medicare with coupons. Nobody should be surprised when he drinks $350 wine with people who want continue the policies of economic inequality.

 

But the dinner is instructive as a picture of power. Throughout these debt ceiling negotiations, I’ve been waiting for the Republicans’ corporate overlords to jerk their chain. And finally, a few days ago, the Business Roundtable, in a letter signed by more than 350 C.E.O.’s, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a dire warning — the game of chicken is up. They said what others who have a large stake in this economy have said: that default could cause a multi-billion dollar crash, affecting everything from auto loans to credit-card debt.

 

And so, in response to the Tasseled Loafers’ concern, McConnell tried again, saying, “We think it’s extremely important that the country reassure the markets that default is not an option.”

 

Note who is getting the reassurance from the Senate Republican leader. But it may be too late. The loafers may want to retreat to their wine cellars until this thing blows over. A renegade wing of their party is lighting fires and throwing rocks (metaphorically, of course!). Once they got a taste of smoke in their nostrils, the anarchists realized they could smash the place up, maybe even burn it down, and no one would stop them. After Aug. 2, the default deadline, the smell will go bad, quickly.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/anarchists-and-tasseled-loafers/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Let it burn.

No one is mentioning decreasing the National Debt, so just default on the foreign debt ($6billion of the $14) and be done with it. 

Without significant increases in fedgov revenues(TAXES!!!), paying down the debt is an impossibility anyway. 


Taxing 100 percent of the income for those making $250,000 and above would not cover one of Obama's deficits -- not one.  Spending must be reduced. Government must shrink.  Growing the economy will produce more revenue, than increasing taxes.  Once more, Obama makes the worst mistakes of FDR's era, as admitted by Secretary Morgenthau.

And the circular reasoning brings us back to the question of what spending to cut?  No one has an answer.  No politician anyway.  Only foreign aid says the consensus, and foreign aid is about $100billion a year, most of which is for food programs.  And that still leaves the National Debt and the $400billion per year in interest we will have to pay in  perpetuity. 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:

July 14, 2011, 8:30 pm

Anarchists and Tasseled Loafers

By TIMOTHY EGAN

 

...Who would risk this anarchists’ storm...

 


 

I just wanted to quote that part...Aha ha ha...lol...lol...ha ha....

 

Whew, OK, got that out of my system...

 

Propagandist you sure do live up to your handle...!!!anarchists!!!

 

Careful, I'm going to go into another laughing fit...

 

Anyone who thinks Michele Bachmann, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, etc. remotely resemble anarchists....!!!anarchists!!!...lol...aha ha ha...tee hee...whoops there I go again.

 

These bunch of Republicans are in favor of big government status quo continuing as any Democrat...

 

!!!Anarchists!!!...whew, that's a good one.  Anyone who thinks that, or tries to equate these people to anarchists are clueless or truly a...propagandist.

 

By the way, the "risk this anarchists’ storm" by not raising the debt ceiling has been shown at least a couple of times on this forum to be a great big fat lie. 

 

Monthly revenue coming in to the government is $200B...monthly payment on the interest for debt about $29B...monthly Social Security about $50B...monthly veteran's and active duty about $50B...

 

The only way these payments would stop is if Congress decides not to send them out.

Get a clue.

 

The Bipartisan Policy Center -- a Washington, D.C.-based think tank with a board that includes former politicians from both parties -- conducted an analysis of what the government's fiscal situation would be if a deal on the debt ceiling is not reached.

When the center analyzed the government's inflows and outflows for the rest of August 2011, it found $172.4 billion in cash coming in, to offset required payments of $306.7 billion. That works out to a deficit of $134.3 billion.

With that amount of income to work with, the government -- if it could prioritize payments, and we'll say more on that later -- could pay the monthly costs of Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Pentagon vendors ($31.7 billion), interest on the debt ($29 billion), and unemployment benefits ($12.8 billion). Those categories total $172.7 billion.

But doing so would mean delaying other payments -- for instance, Pell grants and other educational programs ($20.2 billion), salaries and benefits for federal employees ($14.2 billion), welfare and food programs ($9.3 billion), health and human services grants ($8.1 billion), housing assistance ($6.7 billion), and many other programs, including military active duty pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs program ($2.9 billion), Department of Justice funding that includes the FBI and federal courts ($1.4 billion) and IRS refunds ($3.9 billion).

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Get a clue.

 

The Bipartisan Policy Center -- a Washington, D.C.-based think tank with a board that includes former politicians from both parties -- conducted an analysis of what the government's fiscal situation would be if a deal on the debt ceiling is not reached.

When the center analyzed the government's inflows and outflows for the rest of August 2011, it found $172.4 billion in cash coming in, to offset required payments of $306.7 billion. That works out to a deficit of $134.3 billion.

With that amount of income to work with, the government -- if it could prioritize payments, and we'll say more on that later -- could pay the monthly costs of Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Pentagon vendors ($31.7 billion), interest on the debt ($29 billion), and unemployment benefits ($12.8 billion). Those categories total $172.7 billion.

But doing so would mean delaying other payments -- for instance, Pell grants and other educational programs ($20.2 billion), salaries and benefits for federal employees ($14.2 billion), welfare and food programs ($9.3 billion), health and human services grants ($8.1 billion), housing assistance ($6.7 billion), and many other programs, including military active duty pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs program ($2.9 billion), Department of Justice funding that includes the FBI and federal courts ($1.4 billion) and IRS refunds ($3.9 billion).

 

 


 

I'm not sure what you're deal is...but you need to "get a clue" and learn to comprehend what you read.

 

I've never stated above or anywhere else that the feds will not face tough choices...but to just throw out Social Security as the first thing that would be cut was nothing more than trying to scare Grandma.

 

Politicains, left or right, never ever cut anything...not in the real sense.  That's why we have $14T in debt and the only way to meet the false and phony promises of politicians is to continue to borrow with no end in sight.

 

To actually force them to spend what is taken in...priceless...

 

Dittohead, what do you say we by pass the knuckleheads in Washington and solve the nation's problems here and now...

 

Representing the right (such as it is)...My compromise is to agree to raise the debt ceiling...and the sky is the limit...$20T....$30T...whatever.

 

Representing the left, your compromise is to do away with all paycheck withholdings...NOT the taxes, just the requirement that employers must withhold and send in the payments...everyone would be responsible for sending in their own income, fica, ect.

 

And for good measure since I'm being so generous with the debt ceiling, we change tax day from April 15th to November 1st each year, right before the elections.

 

Your figures are/were wrong. Or, you are lying. Or being disingenuous.  It is not true that: 

 

Monthly revenue coming in to the government is $200B...monthly payment on the interest for debt about $29B...monthly Social Security about $50B...monthly veteran's and active duty about $50B...


The fedgov will have to make historic decisions about suspending payments from obligations, and there is no mechanism for that decision making process in the fedgov currently.

 

Moodys agrees with you and wants the Congress to eliminate the whole debt ceiling concept from the fedgov accounting process, predicting that even lower bond rates might result.  

 

The actual debt is much higher than $14Trillion.  Only about $6trillion is held by foreign governments, the other $9Trillion is intragovernmental debt.  The unfunded liabilities is somewhere between $25 and $60Trillion to cover the expansion of government programs that are already obligated.  So, spending cuts are inevitable, as are tax increases, and denying either is just stoopid. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Your figures are/were wrong. Or, you are lying. Or being disingenuous.  It is not true that: 

 

Monthly revenue coming in to the government is $200B...monthly payment on the interest for debt about $29B...monthly Social Security about $50B...monthly veteran's and active duty about $50B...


 

Well You are either lying or being disingenuous...

 

I may be many things but a liar is not one of them...

 

Each month tax revenues to the Treasury vary. This year the revenues have been as high as $290 billion per month and as low as $110 billion per month. The average for 2011 is $185 billion per month.

 

So maybe I'm misinformed, but all these links seem to say the same thing...the monthly tax revenue is roughly $200B and they get their figures from the US Treasury statement...

 

I guess you can go call of these people liars...

 

U.S. Treasury statement for March $194B

http://www.mygovcost.org/2011/...es-monthly-revenues/

 

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/f...ry-will-not-default/

 

http://www.campaignforliberty....esident-obamas-bluff

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul742.html

 

 

You werent a mathlete were you.

 

The fedgov has a huge deficit somewhere around $(1.6/3.8)*100% of the 2011 budget, which comes to about 42%.  So, every month, 42% of government programs have to funded by borrowing. 

To imply that every thing is done on a annualized monthly average is being disingenuous.  

 

I dont care if the whole fedgov shuts down and no one gets paid.  I'm headed to PCB and will flop on the beach at my condo until you geniuses get everything straightened out. I will still get my paycheck, but I wont be able to go to work since the base will be closed.    So its just another vacation for me.  Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

You werent a mathlete were you.

 

The fedgov has a huge deficit somewhere around $(1.6/3.8)*100% of the 2011 budget, which comes to about 42%.  So, every month, 42% of government programs have to funded by borrowing. 

To imply that every thing is done on a annualized monthly average is being disingenuous.  

 

I dont care if the whole fedgov shuts down and no one gets paid.  I'm headed to PCB and will flop on the beach at my condo until you geniuses get everything straightened out. I will still get my paycheck, but I wont be able to go to work since the base will be closed.    So its just another vacation for me.  Thanks!

 

Maybe there is some confusion...for whatever reason, you don't like actually reading other people's posts...or if you you do, you have a preconceived notion...regardless of what the post actually said.

 

Yes, we all do realize there is a huge deficit...spending more than you take in causes deficits...even a non-"mathlete" like me realizes that.

 

I never said anything to the contrary...what I did say...and I apologize to everyone else, Ditto is special and we have to sometimes repeat ourselves for his benefit...was that some things can be paid for even if the debt ceiling was not raised...

 

The point being scaring Grandma about her social security was not necessary.  I no way implied that all of the expenditures could be met without more borrowing...you seem to be the only one to think I posted such a thing.

 

What I find funny...and the reason I posted to this thread...is that anyone is actually taking all this political WWE wrestling seriously.  To actually compare anything the Republicans proposed as an "anarchists’ storm"...well I just found that highly amusing.

 

To clear any further confusion...I in no way think that the debt ceiling will not be raised...of course it will be.  There will be (fake) cuts proposed, spending limits imposed on future congresses, that this congress has no authority over, and things will resume as always...the $14.3T debt will soon be $15T plus...wash, rinse, repeat...until the Keynesian economic voodoo implodes.

Originally Posted by b50m:

If that base is closed, you won't get paid for that 'vacation'.  Funny, I always heard it was the conservatives who don't gives a rat's azz about any one else as long as they get their benefits.

 

A liberal with a condo who says Kiss Off.  Now that is a true American.


You've finally converted him. He's a True Believer now.

Originally Posted by b50m:

If that base is closed, you won't get paid for that 'vacation'.  Funny, I always heard it was the conservatives who don't gives a rat's azz about any one else as long as they get their benefits.

 

A liberal with a condo who says Kiss Off.  Now that is a true American.

I work for a private contractor, not the government.  Our contracts are paid up through the end of October, so I will receive a paycheck until then.  We also have a facility off base for commercial work so the management infrastructure will be functional.  So no, I dont care.  I do need to remember to buy more sunscreen.  

You guys are really missing the bigger picture. I for one do not want to increase the debt any more, but we have no choice for now. The effect of a default on the bond market and thus interest rates would be catastrophic to the economy. You can still get a 30 year mortgage at around 5%, a default would puich that up to the rates of the late 70's and early 80's, some of which were double digit.

 
That will destroy home values and cause the insolvency of many families already in a mortgage as well as destroying the current financial system that is holdeing those mortgages. Can you say 2008 all over again only worse?

 The flood of devalued homes along with higher interest rates would be the nail in the coffin for this economy. We produce very little here, but last i checked, they're not making homes in China and shipping them over here... Yet. Construction is one of the biggest job creaters and wealth creaters to the economy. And we are not even talking about new cars or appliances or credit cards.

 

 Remember, Interest rates are what is important right now.

Originally Posted by Extra-260:

You guys are really missing the bigger picture. I for one do not want to increase the debt any more, but we have no choice for now. The effect of a default on the bond market and thus interest rates would be catastrophic to the economy. You can still get a 30 year mortgage at around 5%, a default would puich that up to the rates of the late 70's and early 80's, some of which were double digit.

 
That will destroy home values and cause the insolvency of many families already in a mortgage as well as destroying the current financial system that is holdeing those mortgages. Can you say 2008 all over again only worse?

 The flood of devalued homes along with higher interest rates would be the nail in the coffin for this economy. We produce very little here, but last i checked, they're not making homes in China and shipping them over here... Yet. Construction is one of the biggest job creaters and wealth creaters to the economy. And we are not even talking about new cars or appliances or credit cards.

 

 Remember, Interest rates are what is important right now.

Home values are already destroyed. The Contsruction Ind. is already free-falling to disaster.

I agree though that we have to raise the Limit, but with conditions of restriction on spending. And what's wrong with a balanced budget amendment? We have to controll our families budgets, why can't we expect the same of our elected officials. This is the only time those who are concerned with the spending in our country can make a stand. What do you have against a Balanced Budget for our great Country?

Skippy

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by b50m:

If that base is closed, you won't get paid for that 'vacation'.  Funny, I always heard it was the conservatives who don't gives a rat's azz about any one else as long as they get their benefits.

 

A liberal with a condo who says Kiss Off.  Now that is a true American.

I work for a private contractor, not the government.  Our contracts are paid up through the end of October, so I will receive a paycheck until then.  We also have a facility off base for commercial work so the management infrastructure will be functional.  So no, I dont care.  I do need to remember to buy more sunscreen.  

Ditzy,

 

You've proved often you know little of federal budgeting.  Another lesson, don't count your bucks before they are in your bank account. 

 

The government makes progress payments on most defense contracts.  As the time hasn't passed, they haven't paid your company thru October.  They may have a contract good thru then.  However, look for the fine print where it stated contingent upon the existence of funds.  The debt ceiling may cause a cash flow problem.  Government can only pay out debts as cash arrives.  Defense contracts will be low on the totem pole.

 

I'm paid by foreign governments,  the cash is already in the bank, in a trust fund.  Perhaps, if your company does some work for them. we'll send a few dollars your way!

Yes, the debt ceiling should go up once more.  However, there must be a plan to balance the budget and end deficit spending.  With a balanced budget, the interest and principle due that year will be a portion of the budget.  As the years pass, the debt will decrease as they are paid off and not increased.

 

Think of the coming debt ceiling increase as a bridge loan.  without th eloan, you lose the house and can't make the car payments.  With the loan, you pay off the house and keep the car so you can go to work. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

There will never be a balanced budget requirement for the fedgov for the same reason the Founding Fathers neglected to require such a constraint.

 

I trust the people that sign my checks to be aware of the state of the our payroll funding, so I have no concerns about being paid. 


This is the very attitude that we must overcome.





Originally Posted by interventor1212:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Let it burn.

No one is mentioning decreasing the National Debt, so just default on the foreign debt ($6billion of the $14) and be done with it. 

Without significant increases in fedgov revenues(TAXES!!!), paying down the debt is an impossibility anyway. 


Taxing 100 percent of the income for those making $250,000 and above would not cover one of Obama's deficits -- not one.  Spending must be reduced. Government must shrink.  Growing the economy will produce more revenue, than increasing taxes.  Once more, Obama makes the worst mistakes of FDR's era, as admitted by Secretary Morgenthau.

Correction, they are not Obama's deficits, they are the nations  and they were started by Bush, who ****ed away a surplus left to him by Clinton on tax breaks, mostly going to the rich, and fighting two wars off the books. without asking for a tax on something to pay for them. Bush and his bunch crashed our economy which was the best in any of our lifetimes until then, and then handed Obama a depression. 

I am not altogether pleased with how Obama has handled all of it, but for sure he has done a better job than Bush and his republican congress who got us into this mess. That's not all, The Republican leader has stated that the number one priority of the R's is to make Obama a one term president. An honest assessment will show that it looks like they are trying to do every single thing in their power to further ruin our economy in hopes that they will score political points and win the next election. I am convinced that is their strategy  , and anybody who cannot see that fact is just pretty stupid.

Obama is doing a good job of scoring his own political points by saying he is for working across the isle them blasting the republicans at every turn.

 

As for rich tax breaks, look up the tax levels enacted by Bush in 2001 and 2003.

 

If you want to go back to Clinton, that bottom 10% becomes 15%, and every body pays more taxes.

Originally Posted by b50m:

 

 

If you want to go back to Clinton, that bottom 10% becomes 15%, and every body pays more taxes.

And that not only is ok with me, but exactly what I think should be done.

The other side's alternative is to give more tax cuts to the uber rich and corps, and balance the budget by eleminating Social Security, and Medicare, in other words, screw the middle class .

You up kinda late aren't you mean ?

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

And the circular reasoning brings us back to the question of what spending to cut?  No one has an answer.  No politician anyway.  Only foreign aid says the consensus, and foreign aid is about $100billion a year, most of which is for food programs.  And that still leaves the National Debt and the $400billion per year in interest we will have to pay in  perpetuity. 

Food programs? How hopelessly naive.

Originally Posted by marksw59:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

And the circular reasoning brings us back to the question of what spending to cut?  No one has an answer.  No politician anyway.  Only foreign aid says the consensus, and foreign aid is about $100billion a year, most of which is for food programs.  And that still leaves the National Debt and the $400billion per year in interest we will have to pay in  perpetuity. 

Food programs? How hopelessly naive.

No food program will ever be cut in America.  We have to feed the children, even if we are giving the money to the parents that trade it for drugs.  Got any other ideas.  The budget needs to be cut 40% so it should be easy to find 10% that everyone can agree to cut. 

 

I bet they dont cut anything by even 1%, YoY. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by marksw59:
Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

And the circular reasoning brings us back to the question of what spending to cut?  No one has an answer.  No politician anyway.  Only foreign aid says the consensus, and foreign aid is about $100billion a year, most of which is for food programs.  And that still leaves the National Debt and the $400billion per year in interest we will have to pay in  perpetuity. 

Food programs? How hopelessly naive.

No food program will ever be cut in America.  We have to feed the children, even if we are giving the money to the parents that trade it for drugs.  Got any other ideas.  The budget needs to be cut 40% so it should be easy to find 10% that everyone can agree to cut. 

 

I bet they dont cut anything by even 1%, YoY. 


One Idea on food fraud inside and out of Country.

Give actual food, not credit to buy food. Not Millions of dollars to other countries. If they want actual support from the USA, make it shipments of American food, Distributed by American forces.(US Military). If it won't work for them, NO FOOD!

 

Skippy

 

I was mistaken.  The US doesnt spend $100billion on foreign aid, more like $30billion. For 2008, here are the six that received the most:

 

 

 

    COUNTRYAIDPURPOSE
1. Israel$2.4 billionVirtually all of this money is used to buy weapons (up to 75% made in the U.S.). Beginning in 2009, the U.S. plans to give $30 billion over 10 years.
2. Egypt$1.7 billion$1.3 billion to buy weapons; $103 million for education; $74 million for health care; $45 million to promote civic participation and human rights.
3. Pakistan$798 million$330 million for security efforts, including military-equipment upgrades and border security; $20 million for infrastructure.
4. Jordan$688 million$326 million to fight terrorism and promote regional stability through equipment upgrades and training; $163 million cash payment to the Jordanian government.
5. Kenya$586 million$501 million to fight HIV/AIDS through drug treatment and abstinence education and to combat malaria; $15 million for agricultural development; $5.4 million for programs that promote government accountability.
6. South Africa$574 million$557 million to fight TB and HIV/AIDS; $3 million for education.
7. Mexico$551 millionClick here for details.
8. Colombia$541 millionClick here for details.
9. Nigeria$491 millionClick here for details.
10. Sudan$479 millionClick here for details.

 

Last edited by Mr.Dittohead

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×