# I may be able to explain the Republicans
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 11, 2011, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602 "2011-07-11T07:53:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/61 "2011-07-14T01:54:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> we are in danger of losing our current credit rating because of excess debt. It is because the government has promised to spent 14 trillion dollars more than it took it. I can’t think of a better analogy than the inability to balance a checkbook. The same thing that happens to individuals who can’t manage their finances happens to governments. The cost of debt goes up.
Yep, let’s stick with the analogy. I could just quit paying debt and the loansharks come after me. Or I could work overtime and cut the crack habit.
There are 3 levers: reduce spending, raise government income and grow the economy (which grows the tax base). Why the Republicans think that only one option is balancing the checkbook instead of deposit more money into checking?
---
### Author:  [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/62 "2011-07-14T01:57:10Z")
My dad toldme they HAVE to raise the debt ceiling. Personally, I feel it’s only forestalling the inevitable. we WILL default, it’s not something you can hold off forever.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/63 "2011-07-14T02:59:42Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> Well, it’s an either/or.
>
> Increase the debt ceiling and increase your debt ratio.
>
> Default on the debt.
>
> Which one is going to have a bigger negative effect?
>
> -Joe
?Defaulting on the debt. That’s why nobody is suggesting it.
It’s not on either or. We can reduce the budget so it doesn’t require raising the debt.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/64 "2011-07-14T03:06:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> ?Defaulting on the debt. That’s why nobody is suggesting it.
>
> It’s not on either or. We can reduce the budget so it doesn’t require raising the debt.
Not with out increasing revenue. Veto bait.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/65 "2011-07-14T03:13:07Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#):
>
> There are 3 levers: reduce spending, raise government income and grow the economy (which grows the tax base). Why the Republicans think that only one option is balancing the checkbook instead of deposit more money into checking?
The obvious choice is to grow the economy which leaves out raising government income through additional taxes since we’re already in a recession.
What the government could do to spur the economy on is to go back to the drawing board on health care and remove businesses entirely from the equation. It’s not a company’s function in any form. The government could also open up mineral rights for coal and oil on Federal land. There is no justification for transferring our energy needs (and the resulting tax base) to foreign countries.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/66 "2011-07-14T03:15:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> The government could also open up mineral rights for coal and oil on Federal land.
I’m glad you brought this up. Perhaps we could begin by selling oil and mineral leases for more than a fraction of pennies on the dollar.
---
### Author:  [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/67 "2011-07-14T03:15:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> The obvious choice is to grow the economy which leaves out raising government income through additional taxes since we’re already in a recession.
>
> What the government could do to spur the economy on is to go back to the drawing board on health care and remove businesses entirely from the equation. It’s not a company’s function in any form. The government could also open up mineral rights for coal and oil on Federal land. There is no justification for transferring our energy needs (and the resulting tax base) to foreign countries.
Now, why does that make sense to me? Politically speaking, I know about as much as a contraceptive sponge, and that makes a lot of sense.
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/68 "2011-07-14T04:03:39Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#):
>
> There was an interesting story on NPR yesterday. It talked of the ‘little default’ in 1979. A computer glitch/accounting error/data entry error caused the government to default on $120 million. (At the time, the deficit was $8 billion, so it was not a large percentage.) This caused a 0.6% rise in interest rates. IIRC, this cost the government $1.6 billion. ‘But the default was only $120 million! How could the cost be so high?’ Because the interest rate was increased for all loans undertaken by the government – not just the $120 million. That’s the danger of defaulting on the loan. Higher interest rates not only apply to the defaulted amount, but across the board.
>
> The error that caused this situation was quickly discovered and resolved. But the higher interest rate did not decline during the course of the study (which ended six months after the default).
[I found the transcript](http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137773341/looking-at-when-the-u-s-last-defaulted-on-treasury-bonds), and I mis-remembered the numbers. The total debt at the time was $800 billion; not $8 billion. The interest on the $120 million mistake was around $6 billion; not $1.6 billion.
> [@](#):
>
> Prof. ZIVNEY: Yes, it was. The Treasury had around $800 billion outstanding at that time, so it was a very small proportion. However, professor Richard Marcus of the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and I did some research. And we concluded that the defaults of 1979 raised the interest rates that the government had to pay on their securities by about six-tenths of 1 percent.
>
> SIEGEL: Six-tenths of 1 percent - not on $120 million, but you’re saying on the 800 billion, almost a trillion dollars.
>
> Prof. ZIVNEY: Yes. And so six-tenths of 1 percent of a trillion dollars is around $6 billion a year on a $120 million mistake.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/69 "2011-07-14T05:20:03Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> The obvious choice is to grow the economy which leaves out raising government income through additional taxes since we’re already in a recession.
>
> What the government could do to spur the economy on is to go back to the drawing board on health care and remove businesses entirely from the equation. It’s not a company’s function in any form.
What I could do to treat my toothache is buy new shoes. No, wait. What?
In any case, what business is it of the government to tell companies how they may compensate their employees?
---
### Author:  [@UTejas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UTejas)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/70 "2011-07-14T18:26:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> What is so hard to understand about 9% unemployment and not raising taxes at this time? Every other employer on the planet understands that they don’t have an unlimited source of credit. I have yet to hear the world’s largest employer even discuss cutting payroll.
>
> Attention President Obama, IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID. It’s your fucking job to deal with it. If you can’t handle it then step down.
How on earth is your solution to 9% unemployment having **the world’s largest employer** cutting payroll? You do realize that cutting payroll will directly cause unemployment to jump? How on earth can tax increases in the top bracket be considered job killing but having **the world’s largest employer** cut jobs not be?
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/71 "2011-07-14T19:35:27Z")
> [@UTejas](#):
>
> How on earth is your solution to 9% unemployment having **the world’s largest employer** cutting payroll? You do realize that cutting payroll will directly cause unemployment to jump? How on earth can tax increases in the top bracket be considered job killing but having **the world’s largest employer** cut jobs not be?
3% pay reduction. that’s how. Just like any other business in trouble.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/72 "2011-07-14T19:39:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> In any case, what business is it of the government to tell companies how they may compensate their employees?
That is exactly my point.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/73 "2011-07-14T21:38:57Z")
Because a hands-off approach to labor-management relations doesn’t work. Because corporations have no commitment to anything other than their best advantage, which puts them in direct conflict with their workers, which inevitably leads to open conflict, as in the years of labor struggle in America. Review that history if you have any questions. Grinding poverty, bloody confrontations, strike-breakers, and the rise of a revolutionary left. These are not good things.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/74 "2011-07-15T00:48:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Because a hands-off approach to labor-management relations doesn’t work. Because corporations have no commitment to anything other than their best advantage, which puts them in direct conflict with their workers, which inevitably leads to open conflict, as in the years of labor struggle in America. Review that history if you have any questions. Grinding poverty, bloody confrontations, strike-breakers, and the rise of a revolutionary left. These are not good things.
Well that’s a lovely diatribe against the man but it has nothing to do with the logic behind government involvement linking business and health insurance. One has nothing to do with the other. It would be infinitely more useful if employees were to get the money directly in the form of wages.
Saddling businesses with a barrage of new government regulations and costs is a burden that could not come at a worse time economically.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/75 "2011-07-15T00:56:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> It would be infinitely more useful if employees were to get the money directly in the form of wages.
Hardly. An employer can buy group health insurance much cheaper than the employee can purchase individual health insurance.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/76 "2011-07-15T01:00:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Hardly. An employer can buy group health insurance much cheaper than the employee can purchase individual health insurance.
No they can’t. Not from a health maintenance vs health insurance standpoint.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/77 "2011-07-15T01:04:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> No they can’t.
Yes, they can.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/78 "2011-07-15T01:12:50Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Yes, they can.
I just went through this myself along with a number of my friends. The business spent $8000 for my insurance. I spent $2800 with a $5000 deductible. I was ahead the first year and each year that followed put $5200 in my pocket.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/79 "2011-07-15T01:34:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> I just went through this myself along with a number of my friends. The business spent $8000 for my insurance. I spent $2800 with a $5000 deductible. I was ahead the first year and each year that followed put $5200 in my pocket.
Apples and oranges. You assumed the risk that you would have a major medical claim that would have cost your whole deductible. You could have gone without insurance altogether, and saved $8000. Not a valid comparison.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/80 "2011-07-15T01:37:20Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> Apples and oranges. You assumed the risk that you would have a major medical claim that would have cost your whole deductible. You could have gone without insurance altogether, and saved $8000. Not a valid comparison.
Well lets see. I would have made $200 if I had to pay the deductible the first year. How do you figure it’s apples and oranges? I couldn’t lose if the company gave me the money.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602.md?page=5)