New thread more zeroed in on the subject of refusing to raise the debt limit, because of a new quote from Alan Simpson.
What do you think will happen when this comes before Congress? What’re the chances the US will default? Will Obama HAVE to blink on whatever they want just to keep this from happening? Or will there be a huge game of chicken whose outcome is impossible to predict? Whatever happens, will the gamesmanship cause more economic damage?
I predict that there will be a huge game of chicken (perhaps even to the point of the federal government essentially shutting down for a couple of days, with non-essential employees being furloughed and essential employees being “paid” with IOUs) - and then the debt ceiling will be raised like it always is.
I predict a lot of posturing, and the debate on the debt limit will end not with a bang, but a whimper. No political party wants to get the blame for doing the single most disastrous thing in our economic history.
Then I guess the question becomes “which side is more likely to blink?” IOW, will the limit be raised because the Republicans get nervous, or because Obama gives them part of what they want so everyone can declare victory? (I should’ve included it in my OP; it’s a good question. Oh well.)
In '95, the GOP controlled all of Congress, so the government shutdown was a showdown between Congress and the President. Today, they only have the House, so even if they get Obama to agree to something, they’ll still need to convince Senate Dems. This makes a shutdown look less like a contest of chicken between two equals and more like a tantrum by the GOP because they can’t get their way.
Also, in '95 the GOP had a concrete set of proposals for cutting the budget that they wanted passed in return for raising the debt ceiling. Its pretty hard to see the current GOP coming up with anything similar. Their two main priorities, extending Bush tax cuts and getting rid of the Health Care act, would increase the projected deficit.
So in '95, the GOP had a much stronger hand, and the Shutdown thing still blew up in their face. I suspect whats left in the way of adult supervision in the Republican leadership will realize this and prevent the party from making the same mistake twice.
I would rather shut down the government than kowtow to the rightards. No matter what concessions they ask for, they won’t compromise. There is no point in reaching across the aisle if all you pull back is a bloody stump.
As an independent voter, I’m with Fear Itself. I hope a significant number of independents share my sheer disgust for blatantly putting party before country. The party of “no” can just get out of the process. Let the Republicans shut down the country and take the heat.
NO!..mostly because we already ARE!!! in a Depression, long before Rand Paul is even 1 day in office. The U6 unemployment rate is 17.1%, American manufacturing is in a nosedive, we have a record number of mortgages underwater and we also have a record number of home foreclosures, our combined federal budgets and balance of payments deficts are now running trillions of dollars in debt each year, we already 40 million Americans in bread lines(i.e. food stamps), millions of college grads cant find jobs, our unemployment benefit checks are extended endlessly, etc.
Dont blame Rand Paul for the Depression that we are already in, Rand did not do any of this.
I’m putting all my money on “Obama caves to GOP demands for ____ in order to get them to simply do their jobs* (and for bonus points… gives a sappy speech about the value of compromise)”. Dopers seem to be under-estimating his ability to roll over and take it from the Rs. The fun part is that the ____ will inevitably be filled by something that **adds **to the debt/deficit (tax cuts, repeal of HCR, etc).
*Yes teabaggers, I know it shouldn’t be part of their jobs to increase debt, but no reasonable person is proposing any other way around it, so it is as good as the only choice, and as such their job role goes from “debate the debt ceiling” to “sign off on the only option so we can get back to trying to actually fix the long term plans”.
Republicans will shut the place down.
Obama should make sure no one gets their SS checks, tax refunds, medicare or other such items, and then gently suggest that concerned citizens contact their grandstanding congresscritters regarding the proper role of the legislative branch.
So you’re ok with not budgeting for that stuff to begin with? Why is it that every year the govenment does a budget, it comes up short every year and we need to spend more. Why even make a budget if the gov’t doesnt have to stick to it?
The government has to make a budget. It’s required by law and the Constitution. Neither one requires that the budget be balanced, but it is a very good idea.
What I’m getting at is that the budget cannot be balanced in one year. Or two, or even three or so. Doing so would require either very, very large spending cuts and hundreds of thousands of layoffs, or very, very steep tax increases. There are consequences to either course. In any case, driving by and saying the government should balance the budget without an apparent appreciation of the tough choices involved is like thinking it’s a brilliant idea to tell a disabled, alcoholic bum to go get a job: doing it is much harder than saying it ought to be done.
Assuming post-recession spending and revenues goes back to more or less what it was under Bush II, the gap between the two is about one part in 20 of their total sizes. So a cut in spending of 2.5% and an increase in taxes of 2.5% would balance the budget, at least in the short term. Not that thats trivial, as you say its certainly not something you can just do in a year, and certainly not something that would be smart to try while unemployment is at 9%, but I’m not sure it qualifies as “very very large”.
Just mentioning the numbers, because I think sometimes people have an over-blown idea of how large the problem is. IIRC, simply returning to the level of taxation we had in the late 90’s closes almost the entire gap.
