Obama thinks you are dumb! "Professional Politicans" know better than you!! (video)

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Not raising the debt ceiling is a moral hazard as well. Considering what would happen without raising it, it doesn't seem like there is a reasonable alternative. Spending cuts are good, but there has to be some room to pan that out.

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Not raising the debt ceiling is a moral hazard as well. Considering what would happen without raising it, it doesn't seem like there is a reasonable alternative. Spending cuts are good, but there has to be some room to pan that out.

Yep. Like trying to quit drinking, by drinking something different.

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Not raising the debt ceiling is a moral hazard as well. Considering what would happen without raising it, it doesn't seem like there is a reasonable alternative. Spending cuts are good, but there has to be some room to pan that out.

No, not raising the debt ceiling is not moral hazard. Playing fast and loose with words and phrases does nothing to add to the debate. What you are suggesting is that by not raising the debt ceiling the pain of economic disaster would be morally reprehensible, but this is not what moral hazard means, and I explained clearly what it does mean.

As to the suggestion, I obviously inferred from your post, that not raising the debt ceiling would be disastrous, it will be disastrous one way or the other, and raising the debt ceiling only postpones inevitability. Market forces cannot be controlled, and will act in response to natural reactions of buyers and sellers. When a person, a business, or in this case, government is in tremendous debt their ability to properly function becomes greatly limited. Debt is a really bad idea, unless that debt is taken with a reasonable expectation of turning it into a profit. Government does not operate this way.

Spending undeniably has to be cut, but the suggestion that first we need to expand the debt in order to cut spending is patently absurd. Selling insanity to sane people only guarantees failure. There may be enough insane people to have a market demand for insane policies, but allowing the patients to run the asylum is predictably disastrous.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Raising the debt ceiling yet again to save your butts from the sling... yet again ?

Alrighty then... I have a question for all you "well informed" economic specialists:

Which is better:

Continuing to raise the credit limit on your credit card

The US Government is NOT a private individual

Raise your Credit Card limit? An Individual does not have that ability. The Credit Card company does.

They also determine the INTEREST RATE they charge you.

Look at it this way. Stop paying your credit cards for a couple months and then start paying again after the Credit Card company has bumped your interest rate from 5.99% to 29.99%.

Have you saved yourself money? Or have you screwed yourself into a cycle of debt where the sky high interest payments anchor you into poverty?

If the US fails to raise the debt ceiling the United States will default on it's Soveriegn debt.

That means that our creditors (or in your example - Credit Card Company) will dramtically RAISE our interest rates.

And then the analogy is no longer an analogy by the way. Credit Card rates for consumers will rocket as well. Business loan rates will rocket. The cost of money as a whole will soar.

All of those DRAMATICALLY INCREASED interest rates for both the US Government and the Consumer will SUCK MONEY out of an economy that desperately needs it at the same time that a 2nd Reccession takes hold as the markets panic.

We will be paying much, MUCH more on our debts.A recovery will be fantasy at that stage. We would enter a second great depression.

Not hyperbole, common fricken sense for anyone that took Finance 101.

Go ahead and slash spending. Raise taxes, whatever, but not raising the debt ceiling is not an option. That will cost us much more than it will ever save.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Spending undeniably has to be cut, but the suggestion that first we need to expand the debt in order to cut spending is patently absurd. Selling insanity to sane people only guarantees failure.

You want to balance the books before Aug 2nd and not raise the debt ceiling?

That is possible.

1.7 Trillion is the difference for this year between the debt ceiling and what we are scheduled to pay.

We would need to immediately eliminate all
defense and military spending 689B
Social Security 701B
and Medicare 793B

That gets us there.

Or we can sit down and rationally plan a way out of the debt.
Item one could be to no longer invade and occupy foriegn countries for no good reason. Iraq would have saved us a couple Trillion right there. How about finding a new source of energy besides Oil? And as long as we are talking about oil, how about we cease giving subsidies to oil companies that are making Billions in quarterly profits?

Lots of solutions...none of them involve crashing the world economy.

reply to post by Indigo5

Or we can sit down and rationally plan a way out of the debt.

Your first suggestion was rational enough, what followed after this sentence has value and is worth discussing, but the first suggestion you made, that you imply is an irrational one, is the better choice.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Raising the debt ceiling yet again to save your butts from the sling... yet again ?

Alrighty then... I have a question for all you "well informed" economic specialists:

Which is better:

Continuing to raise the credit limit on your credit card

The US Government is NOT a private individual

Raise your Credit Card limit? An Individual does not have that ability. The Credit Card company does.

They also determine the INTEREST RATE they charge you.

Look at it this way. Stop paying your credit cards for a couple months and then start paying again after the Credit Card company has bumped your interest rate from 5.99% to 29.99%.

Have you saved yourself money? Or have you screwed yourself into a cycle of debt where the sky high interest payments anchor you into poverty?

If the US fails to raise the debt ceiling the United States will default on it's Soveriegn debt.

That means that our creditors (or in your example - Credit Card Company) will dramtically RAISE our interest rates.

And then the analogy is no longer an analogy by the way. Credit Card rates for consumers will rocket as well. Business loan rates will rocket. The cost of money as a whole will soar.

All of those DRAMATICALLY INCREASED interest rates for both the US Government and the Consumer will SUCK MONEY out of an economy that desperately needs it at the same time that a 2nd Reccession takes hold as the markets panic.

We will be paying much, MUCH more on our debts.A recovery will be fantasy at that stage. We would enter a second great depression.

Not hyperbole, common fricken sense for anyone that took Finance 101.

Go ahead and slash spending. Raise taxes, whatever, but not raising the debt ceiling is not an option. That will cost us much more than it will ever save.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Apparently you didn't catch the part where I pointed out the fact that the only reason the US now has no choice but to raise the debt ceiling yet again is because congress procrastinasted on taking any other action to fix the mess until far too late in the game.

After it gets raised this time, if the US does not start slashing spending and increasing revenues drastically to bring down their debt during that extended grace period, then you're going to end up in this exact same scenario in a couple more years... again and again and again.

You can't keep putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. Eventually the continuous bleeding is going to kill you.

THAT is basic Finance 101.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by Harro
I would be so frustrated doing his job.

So many small, narrow minded people thinking they speak for everyone when they only speak for themselves.

He is correct that he and his administration know more about the crisis than the average American. I'm not in the least offended by this - I do not sit down 24/7 and analyse the best way forward and I willingly yield to those more informed.

It might not be the right way to say it but I understand and accept the sentiment.

Obama 2012!

edit on 12-7-2011 by Harro because: spelling

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or just trolling, but here goes.

Of course his Administration knows more about the current crisies than we do.

They orchastrated them!

Thank you for proving Obama was right. If you knew as much as you think you would only part of the crisis is because of him. And as far as the average American goes if it doesn't involve their cellphones or tv's they are clueless.

Originally posted by Harro
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

If (we don't know - I can't even think how to quantify something like that) true... well informed is still not good enough for you to run the country. I'm sorry - at best you can comment from the sidelines with your informed opinion, but you're just not good enough to run the country.

I identify your second sentence as an insult

Not an insult,I'm just tired and over this whole administration and politics in general,what I wanted to say was there was many miss- informed people that voted for Obama and didn't have a clue as to whom they were voting(and non of us really know who he is) for,shall we call it blind voting and these are the ones crying the hardest now.I'm tired of the lying ,cheating,and criminal activity that takes place daily in D.C.........................I don't claim to have the knowledge to run the country,but I am informed enough to know this man in office will never have my vote no matter how much he gets sugar-coated.

Yup, this is an Obama "let them eat cake moment". The main reason that "professional politicians" understand the issue better than us peons has a lot to do with the sorry state of education in the US.

On the bright side, that the POTUS is even mentioning "bond auctions" tells me that we are extremely close to the end game. The only time I've ever heard of a President mentioning bond traders at all is when Clinton said something like " You mean to tell me a bunch of (expletive deleted) bond traders are going to keep us from health care reform?"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Moral hazard or not, it doesn't impact the need to not default on the debt. Neither dems or repubs would want that to happen.

There's no denying that it postpones inevitability, but there's a difference between something that's planned and something that is reactionary and without thought. Try "taking a stand" and stop paying your mortgage or credit card bills, that's akin to what not raising the debt ceiling would do.

We don't need to expand debt in order to cut spending, what we do need though is time. Work on cutting spending while not defaulting on our debt, should be pretty obvious.

So how many people want to forgo raising the debt ceiling? Seems to be a good number. Was reading a Tea Party flyer and that's what they were proposing as well. Unfortunately pitchforks don't make the best currency..

reply to post by Turq1


A "Strategic Default" is the only action that anyone with any clue about economics could endorse. You do not get out of a hole by digging deeper. It is a functional impossibility.

reply to post by Harro

That's interesting - I didn't know that. So Congress should be copping more heat than they do you think?

Yes. Absolutely congress should have the spotlight turned on them. At the same time, I am not defining the constitutional role of the president as though he is merely a spectator. He most certainly has a duty to the people, and a job to do. And this one is not doing it. But then, his recent predecessors are no less guilty.

Also, I'm still unclear with the agenda that is behind all this - what is the overarching purpose for those things you mention?

End game? Strictly in my opinion. Corporatization and ownership of the world. Period. And I'm not talking Hollywood fantasy. I'm talking about a real agenda to own everything. Including the people. IMHO.

I say fine raise the debt ceiling, but I also say that until we are completely in the green all elected "professional politicians" deserve a 100% tax on their salaries. If after an allotted amount of time passes and the budget is still not balanced to get us out of debt that tax should be raised to 200%. The fact is that politics is not a profession. It is a privilege that requires immense responsibility and duty. If they are too incompetent to run our budget in the green then they deserve no compensation, and if they continue to fail they should owe the country back pay and fines.

reply to post by Ariess


I like where you are going with that, but still maintain that nothing good can come out of going further into debt.

Other than the inevitable renaming of the Washington Monument to the "JP Morgan/Chase National Monument" or renaming the Arlington National Cemetery to the "Wells Fargo Stone Garden."

I am very glad that american people are waking up.
I advised many of my american friends NOT to trust what obama is speaking in his election campaigns. If you have any video and roll back to listen to what he said.. it was FULL of lies just to win the election.

There was a severe crisis during that time and 'middle class' was most favourable word used to impress people. He said he would bring the country 'out' of debt and recession
He said he would bring back the military home, from wars
He would reform the health care for good... all crap, looks like he is playing to destruct and kill the economy of the people. What happened to 'to/for/by the people' government?? I think, in obama administration, it means 'lie to the people, debt is for the people and will be repaid by the people'.. Doesn't american constitution let people make resign their unpleasant ruler?

Translation -

The Public is stupid, we are smart and we will tell you what to think and which lies to believe. Seems simple enough to me.

This is a scary guy folks. I highly suggest people right now read all you can find about Hitlers rise and similarities. Hitler was also a consummate progressive and anyone with the courage to compare will agree with me if you're honest with yourself. Sadly some are very blind. Bush was bad, but Obama is far more scary to me. The man who would be King.

Don't forget about those children in US schools chanting Obama. Have you folks forgotten that yet? When you control the youth, you control the whole country. Why do you think they took over the schools and keep taking parents rights away.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler; all Progressives who thought the same way.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Translation -

The Public is stupid, we are smart and we will tell you what to think and which lies to believe. Seems simple enough to me.

This is a scary guy folks. I highly suggest people right now read all you can find about Hitlers rise and similarities. Hitler was also a consummate progressive and anyone with the courage to compare will agree with me if you're honest with yourself. Sadly some are very blind. Bush was bad, but Obama is far more scary to me. The man who would be King.

Don't forget about those children in US schools chanting Obama. Have you folks forgotten that yet? When you control the youth, you control the whole country. Why do you think they took over the schools and keep taking parents rights away.

Stalin, Mao, Hitler; all Progressives who thought the same way.

Took the words out of my mouth. I have been writing and telling everyone I know how spookily similar this all sounds to my German Jewish great-grandfathers stories about 1930s Germany

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am in the same camp as them regarding ignorance on the economy.
My action to them differs to them in that I keep quiet on this issue.

I am different to them based on my action.

I've taken the opportunity to do one of two things - reiterate my opinion or modify my opinion. I have chosen the former. When I say something like "I hope that clears things up" next time you should put it in context - I am merely doing one of those two mentioned things... don't simply throw it back in my face.

On your second point, I disagree with your Randian analysis of the issue. That might be a discussion for another time/thread.



reply to post by TWILITE22


Fair enough - we all get disillusioned by the system from time to time. I think that is largely because there are so many people that only some interests can be met. When ours are rebuffed continually we ask ourselves what is the point - we are just going to continue on the same road.

I disagree though that the conclusion of all this is some grand conspiracy theory.

reply to post by Apokalypsis


Very interesting re: congress. I will have do some research.

As to your conspiracy theory (that's what it is - I'm not facetious), you've explained the "what" can you try "how" and "why" just quickly?