The Debt Ceiling (Yawn) In A Nutshell
Posted: Thursday, July 28, 2011
by Michael Ramzy
delusionthread.com
Another hot one here in Austin, the 43rd in a row with temperatures over 100 degrees. I'm not complaining, of course, since I'm used to it. Just the other day, in fact, I saw a cow try to jump into a McDonald's because the grill would be cooler than the air outside . . .
The heat is pretty severe in our nation's capital as well, our political employees have said to anyone who will listen: the debt ceiling needs to be raised otherwise we (or they, technically) will default on our debt and bills won't be paid on time.
The debt ceiling scare is similar in that there are three ways to look at it:
1) It is the Democrats fault: This is the line of every Republican from sea to shining sea. They blew all of the money, continue to spend money hand over fist, and now want more credit? The Republicans say no way: cut spending (cut up the credit cards, in other words) and then we'll talk. No room for compromise since the Democrats (Republicans too, of course) have a staggering inability to reign in spending. The only exception in the past forty years has been Bill Clinton (believe it or not).
2) It is the Republicans fault: This is the line of every Democrat from the same sea to shining sea. The rich have the lowest tax rates in years, it's time for them to start paying their 'fair share', time for them to forget about tax breaks and cuts and just start paying more to Uncle Sam. Heck, they say, even under Eisenhower the tax rate was almost twice what it is now, and you didn't have near the financial problems as today.
3) It is the fault of all of Congress: This is the line of a few (very few) who believe the lawmakers are sent to Congress to make laws, not bicker and blame. It is the job of all lawmakers, regardless of party, to prevent anything from happening to the security - including economic security - of the United States. They, and the President, have failed.
In the end, whether the debt ceiling is raised or not, will it really make a difference? The government will (obviously) have to prioritize its obligations and payments, and they will have to find some other source of revenue. Raising taxes a couple of percent on the ultra-rich won't send the economy in a tailspin (as the Republicans want you to believe), and cutting the fat out of social programs won't gut Medicare (as the Democrats want you to believe). And yet, in the end, it won't matter much. Interest rates won't rise (which would cause bond rates to go down) enough to matter, and the country will keep chugging along, until the next 'catastrophe' - manufactured by Congress with the reliable media's help - takes our attention.
This Article has been viewed 514 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Yes Mike, the rich should show some responsibility to the crisis we face and do their fair share by contributing to taxes and not trying to get a free ride. (by the way you have a minor hurricane heading your way it should bring you some well needed rain.)I hope we do get the rain! And yes, although I understand both positions on this 'crisis', it is pretty unreasonable to think raising more taxes on the richest (the billionaires) will stop economic growth. Of course, at the same time, both parties need to stop throwing money away. Granted, Bush was given a huge surplus which he and his party (with the Democrats eager help) flushed away, yet Obama cannot be taken seriously when he says he's willing to make the 'sacrifices' necessary while on a spending spree. We can't fix everything at once, although it would be wonderful if we could.
Until both parties say they will (as opposed to 'plan to') prioritize their spending (rebuilding America instead of Afghanistan, for starters), they can't be taken seriously.Well written article and comment. I'd like to see them put a list out to us, the ones paying for everything, that lists exactly what is paid to what entity and let us say yea or nay. Maybe it is time to not fund the arts or parks or other non-essentials. Yeah, fees to attend may increase a few dollars if the entity wants to stay afloat. Hmm..kind of sounds like fair tax. Now, I'd better stop. Thanks for writing this.I don't think cutting the arts are the answer, but I would pay a little more for services like that. Same goes with the mail, etc. Thanks for reading and commenting.Hi Lorrie, This is the official government view of the budget:
Social security 21%
Medicare/Medicaid 34%
Non-defense discretionary 18%
Defense 20%
Interest on debt 8%
But it is a distortion because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and furthermore, the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending.
This is a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent:
Current Military 36% (Includes Bush’s ongoing wars)
Past military 18% (pensions, health care etc.)
Human resources 30%
General government 11%
Physical resources 5%
The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.
Great article Michael. Concise, to the point and accurate in my opinion. My only disagreement is that I think this time it is a genuine crisis and not just a fabricated one to frighten us into agreeing to something we otherwise wouldn't. Because I believe we've reached the point that if we were to confiscate all the money held by every billionaire in the nation, it wouldn't be enough to solve the problem.You may be right about the crisis, yet I still believe it is manufactured for the most part by the people in charge (and media, of course) to keep us entertained. The more serious crisis is the widening divide in this country. Thanks for reading and commenting.Hi Steve, see my comment to Lorrie above.
The hypocrisy in the halls of congress would be laughable were it not so dangerous. The only thing more deplorable are the ignorant masses that believe their crap. So many people have become disgusted they stay away from the voting booths leaving nothing but the lunatic fringes to elect our representatives, and that's what we're left with, a bunch of lunatics. Although I've never wanted to believe it, I suppose I'm becoming convinced that is fairly representative of the constituency they serve.
Nice work Michael.Thank you. You are right, unfortunately. I thought Mr. Obama's election would change all of that, but apparently not. Thanks for reading and commenting.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.