"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
The government had to raise the debt celing last year to pay its obligations. The same arguments apply.That should have made us even, last year, right? So why do we need to raise the debt ceiling again? The boneheads did not try to save anything, but spent even more since they got away with it.
If we cover our debt again, and break even by raising the ceiling, what prevents the same boneheads from overspending again, next year? As long as there is no penalty for the boneheads why should they not continue this game each year?
I would let the government default for as many days as needed so the spending goes back to last years debt ceiling.
The only non discretionary spending our Federal Government engages in,
is the servicing the Federal Debt.
Everything else should be on the table.
We have a national revenue of $2,302,495 Million and spend $3,598,086 Million.
(TABLE FFO-1.—Summary of Fiscal Operations 2011)
So we need to trim 36% from our budget, It actually needs to be more, as $454,000 Million
will be used to service the debt.
So we need to get spending down to about 1,800,000 Million per year.
It is a tough choice, but any other will lead to financial ruin.
It is a very bad idea to attempt to hold the country hostage for ideological purposes. Reason being, the President can simply supersede the debt limit by issuing transferable registered warrants. Their are rumors afloat that financing companies are likely to emerge from such an action. The idea is they will pay something like 90% of the warrant value in cash/direct deposit.
Republican lawmakers must really have desire to become irrelevant.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
In terms of the issue of one's not being able to assume rationality applies at all times in Washington that I had mentioned earlier, the Politico.com blog suggests that there is a number of House Members who might be inclined to force a partial default. That piece can be found at: Behind the Curtain: House GOP eyes default, shutdown - POLITICO.com
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman