Warren Buffett: Debt ceiling should be removed

[Parsad]

John Birch Society...err, sorry Tea Partiers...are ready to light the match!  This is not going to be good.  Probably not quite as bad as some may make it out to be, but it will not be good.  Waste of time, waste of money and a distinct possibility...in fact, likelihood of a double-dip. 

 

It will change the game completely on what we can expect from other nations.  And our frickin' loonie is going to go through the roof, probably pushing us into a recession as well!  Cheers!

[twacowfca]

John Birch Society...err, sorry Tea Partiers...are ready to light the match!  This is not going to be good.  Probably not quite as bad as some may make it out to be, but it will not be good.  Waste of time, waste of money and a distinct possibility...in fact, likelihood of a double-dip.  

 

It will change the game completely on what we can expect from other nations.  And our frickin' loonie is going to go through the roof, probably pushing us into a recession as well!  Cheers!

 

Tea party?  Or tempest in a tea pot?  Default? Schmalt!

 

Check out the not so ancient history of Clinton's debt limit spatt with the Republicans in the 90's.  Change the names of the players, and there is a play by play of current events.    ;)

 

Next topic: Unimaginable Horror of Son of Y2K.  :o

[txlaw]

Am I wrong in thinking that everyone in the government agrees that we must spend less, but that the primary hang up is whether there should be tax increases incorporated into any deal?

 

I am sorry to say that I think you are wrong. Everyone in the gov't does not agree that we must spend less. The only reason that we are now having this debate in Congress is because of the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats still had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency there would be no debate about spending less. There would have been no extension of the tax cuts in December, taxes would have increased. Unchallenged, the 2011 budget deficits would be between $1.5 to $2 trillion, and taxes would have been raised yet again in an attempt to cover the shortfall. Does anyone out there doubt this???

 

 

 

Now, let's see.  Which party was in complete control of congress in December, 2010 when the Bush tax cuts were extended and lots of other goodies handed to high income types?  Was it the same party that has the Lion's share of ultra high income financial supporters?  

 

Hmm.  Could it be that the Bush tax cuts were extended because the Republicans threatened to block permanent tax cuts for the middle class unless Congress also made the tax cut for ultra high income Americans permanent?  

 

Could it be that the President brokered a compromise that was deeply offensive to the progressive wing of the Democratic party for the good of the nation?  :o

[twacowfca]

Am I wrong in thinking that everyone in the government agrees that we must spend less, but that the primary hang up is whether there should be tax increases incorporated into any deal?

 

I am sorry to say that I think you are wrong. Everyone in the gov't does not agree that we must spend less. The only reason that we are now having this debate in Congress is because of the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats still had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency there would be no debate about spending less. There would have been no extension of the tax cuts in December, taxes would have increased. Unchallenged, the 2011 budget deficits would be between $1.5 to $2 trillion, and taxes would have been raised yet again in an attempt to cover the shortfall. Does anyone out there doubt this???

 

 

 

Now, let's see.  Which party was in complete control of congress in December, 2010 when the Bush tax cuts were extended and lots of other goodies handed to high income types?  Was it the same party that has the Lion's share of ultra high income financial supporters?  

 

Hmm.  Could it be that the Bush tax cuts were extended because the Republicans threatened to block permanent tax cuts for the middle class unless Congress also made the tax cut for ultra high income Americans permanent?  

 

Could it be that the President brokered a compromise that was deeply offensive to the progressive wing of the Democratic party for the good of the nation?  :o

 

The Democrat Party had a huge majority in the US House of Representatives and a rarely seen filibuster proof supermajority in the US Senate when the income tax cuts and the huge Roth rollover provision were extended.  Oh, let's not forget the $10,000,000.00 exemption from the estate tax.

[txlaw]

Am I wrong in thinking that everyone in the government agrees that we must spend less, but that the primary hang up is whether there should be tax increases incorporated into any deal?

 

I am sorry to say that I think you are wrong. Everyone in the gov't does not agree that we must spend less. The only reason that we are now having this debate in Congress is because of the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats still had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency there would be no debate about spending less. There would have been no extension of the tax cuts in December, taxes would have increased. Unchallenged, the 2011 budget deficits would be between $1.5 to $2 trillion, and taxes would have been raised yet again in an attempt to cover the shortfall. Does anyone out there doubt this???

 

 

 

Now, let's see.  Which party was in complete control of congress in December, 2010 when the Bush tax cuts were extended and lots of other goodies handed to high income types?  Was it the same party that has the Lion's share of ultra high income financial supporters?  

 

Hmm.  Could it be that the Bush tax cuts were extended because the Republicans threatened to block permanent tax cuts for the middle class unless Congress also made the tax cut for ultra high income Americans permanent?  

 

Could it be that the President brokered a compromise that was deeply offensive to the progressive wing of the Democratic party for the good of the nation?  :o

 

The Democrat Party had a huge majority in the US House of Representatives and a rarely seen filibuster proof supermajority in the US Senate when the income tax cuts and the huge Roth rollover provision were extended.  Oh, let's not forget the $10,000,000.00 exemption from the estate tax.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Dems did not have a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate or a majority of House in late 2010, did they? 

 

I recall the Progressives in the Democratic Party being pretty pissed off at Obama for compromising on the estate tax and Bush era tax cuts in late 2010.

 

Also, the specter of a Democratic filibuster-proof supermajority was something cooked up by GOP strategists and the WSJ editorial page at the time of the Presidential election.  The fact of the matter is that there is enough variability in the two parties to where a 60-seat block in the Senate doesn't result in the party agenda being rammed through the Senate come hell or highwater.  There are a lot of moderate Senators who wouldn't sign onto legislation that is too left or right of center.  (I believe in the GOP, those moderate Senators are disparaged as RINOs.).  Heck, even Fox News felt the 60-vote supermajority was a mirage.  See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/

[ericd1]

Most of the folks I talk with are just plain annoyed with the Washington political crap. I know I am. It was a topic of discussion this morning on Meet the Press. Independents are going to be a huge factor in the next election as voters leave both parties.

 

Btw "entitlements" is a new word. It wasn't used when the programs started. It's pathetic that today many Americans believe they are "entitled" to anything from the government. It hasn't always been like that.

[twacowfca]

Am I wrong in thinking that everyone in the government agrees that we must spend less, but that the primary hang up is whether there should be tax increases incorporated into any deal?

 

I am sorry to say that I think you are wrong. Everyone in the gov't does not agree that we must spend less. The only reason that we are now having this debate in Congress is because of the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats still had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency there would be no debate about spending less. There would have been no extension of the tax cuts in December, taxes would have increased. Unchallenged, the 2011 budget deficits would be between $1.5 to $2 trillion, and taxes would have been raised yet again in an attempt to cover the shortfall. Does anyone out there doubt this???

 

 

 

Now, let's see.  Which party was in complete control of congress in December, 2010 when the Bush tax cuts were extended and lots of other goodies handed to high income types?  Was it the same party that has the Lion's share of ultra high income financial supporters?  

 

Hmm.  Could it be that the Bush tax cuts were extended because the Republicans threatened to block permanent tax cuts for the middle class unless Congress also made the tax cut for ultra high income Americans permanent?  

 

Could it be that the President brokered a compromise that was deeply offensive to the progressive wing of the Democratic party for the good of the nation?  :o

 

The Democrat Party had a huge majority in the US House of Representatives and a rarely seen filibuster proof supermajority in the US Senate when the income tax cuts and the huge Roth rollover provision were extended.  Oh, let's not forget the $10,000,000.00 exemption from the estate tax.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Dems did not have a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate or a majority of House in late 2010, did they? 

 

I recall the Progressives in the Democratic Party being pretty pissed off at Obama for compromising on the estate tax and Bush era tax cuts in late 2010.

 

Also, the specter of a Democratic filibuster-proof supermajority was something cooked up by GOP strategists and the WSJ editorial page at the time of the Presidential election.  The fact of the matter is that there is enough variability in the two parties to where a 60-seat block in the Senate doesn't result in the party agenda being rammed through the Senate come hell or highwater.  There are a lot of moderate Senators who wouldn't sign onto legislation that is too left or right of center.  (I believe in the GOP, those moderate Senators are disparaged as RINOs.).  Heck, even Fox News felt the 60-vote supermajority was a mirage.  See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/

 

You're probably right about the limits of the supermajority.  Nevertheless, the majority party controlled the legislative agenda, and the tax cuts would have expired if the Majority hadn't taken initiative to extend them.  The extension of the huge Roth rollover was an unexpected bonus.  This, plus the huge exemption on the estate tax are inexplicable without reference to the fact that the great majority of Silicon Valley and hedge fund megamillionaires supported the party in power, IMHO.

[ubuy2wron]

Could someone please explain to me why establishmnet Republicans are so darn afraid of tea-party extremists Ms. Bachman will never get elected to high office. The Republican party seems to be for ever held captive by its silly extremes does any one think that the Dems are controlled by the unions other than the most strident Fox commentators.If there ever was a justifiable deficit at the Federal level it has been the period of the last two years. Every THINKING person on this planet knows that  the US govt must raise taxes and cut expenditures the squable is simply over how how much and how soon. 

[Packer16]

In essence today we are collecting 20% and spending 25% and borrowing the difference.  I think the key is do you want 20% or 25% of GNP to be gov't spending?  The story of the Republicans being held hostage by the tea party is just that, a story made up by the folks that want to spend 25% against the most vocal folks that want to spend 20%.  I think the more appropriate question for the 25% spenders is how will they pay for 25% spending?  They have perpetuated the myth that this spending can be paid for by the "rich".  You may not agreee with the 20% spenders but at least they are honest.

 

 

Packer     

[onyx1]

In essence today we are collecting 20% and spending 25% and borrowing the difference.  I think the key is do you want 20% or 25% of GNP to be gov't spending?  The story of the Republicans being held hostage by the tea party is just that, a story made up by the folks that want to spend 25% against the most vocal folks that want to spend 20%.  I think the more appropriate question for the 25% spenders is how will they pay for 25% spending?  They have perpetuated the myth that this spending can be paid for by the "rich".  You may not agreee with the 20% spenders but at least they are honest.

 

 

Packer     

 

Wait, I thought we could balance the budget by simply taxing corporate jet owners.  Not true?  :o

[Ben Graham]

Down to the Wire- U.S. Reports

 

Harry Reid and John A. Boehner agree:

 

http://coveringdelta.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/debt_ceiling_19034935.jpg

 

Obama shoots for the moon:

 

http://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-failed-stimulis1.jpg

[rogermunibond]

Could someone please explain to me why establishmnet Republicans are so darn afraid of tea-party extremists Ms. Bachman will never get elected to high office. The Republican party seems to be for ever held captive by its silly extremes does any one think that the Dems are controlled by the unions other than the most strident Fox commentators.If there ever was a justifiable deficit at the Federal level it has been the period of the last two years. Every THINKING person on this planet knows that  the US govt must raise taxes and cut expenditures the squable is simply over how how much and how soon. 

 

Because the Republicans are deeply complicit in running up the Federal debt during the years of Reagan and Bush 2.  With the brief exception of Bush 1.  Remember there were 2 strains of Republicans - Rockefeller Republicans were establishment.  Reagan Republicans were talking about govt getting out of the way.  Reagan won that battle.  Bush 1 was more of the Rockefeller Repub. than Reagan and he was pilloried by the rank and file for going back on his tax pledge.  By 1990s the Reagan Repubs are the establishment.  Old Rockefeller Repubs. (like Munger) are barely a factor.  The Tea Party comes along and sees the record of both the Dems and the Reagan Repubs. and they want blood.  So that is the position that the establishment Repubs are dealing with.

[ubuy2wron]

In essence today we are collecting 20% and spending 25% and borrowing the difference.  I think the key is do you want 20% or 25% of GNP to be gov't spending?  The story of the Republicans being held hostage by the tea party is just that, a story made up by the folks that want to spend 25% against the most vocal folks that want to spend 20%.  I think the more appropriate question for the 25% spenders is how will they pay for 25% spending?  They have perpetuated the myth that this spending can be paid for by the "rich".  You may not agreee with the 20% spenders but at least they are honest.

 

 

Packer   

 

 

 

Packer America can survive and thrive with govt. spending 20% of GDP it can survive 25% it can survive any reasonable number you want to suggest. What it can not survive IMO is a political agenda that is controlled by extreme views. The fringes of both parties are populated by some scary individuals and yes the rich should and can pay more they have been steadily paying less since Reagan was elected under both the dems and republicans. The kinds of Investments the US needs right now are the kind of investments the private sector can not make, roads bridges  ports education  there exists a boat load of excess capacity in the arena of the private sector the private sector sure aint capital constrained at least not in a world where Groupon has investors lining up to by a share of a 20 billion valuation>>>LOL

[SouthernYankee]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272690/debt-ceiling-chicken-thomas-sowell

 

-Another person who agrees.

[Liberty]

Just to show that it's all about political posturing and tactics:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

[SouthernYankee]

"Like I said, truly, there is a feeling in my caucus, and in me specifically, I can say, that I feel we are willing to compromise by coming to the table and saying we understand we'll have to raise the debt limit specifically, but we have to get ourselves on a fiscal trajectory, because look, we've spent too much money. We have the same tax rates, the same two wars, the same prescription drug benefit in 2007, but the deficit then was $161 billion. This year it's $1.5 trillion.” 



 

-This is a quote from Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). If those numbers are correct, and I did not know there was such a huge disparity, then this is a little bit more than political posturing. The number is 10x as large. You could liquidate Apple, Microsoft, BRK, Intel, Google, and you would pay off the debt for ONE year! What would you do next year??