David Brooks says it all; The Republican party has gone off the deep end

• BoatShoes

  Despite the Democrats and Barack Obama doing their best Herbert Hoover impression Rand Paul and others are threatening to filibuster with the full faith and credit of the United States truly frightening.
  
  (I noticed Writer posted a thread lamenting the inefficiency of BHO's non-keynesian, too-small and inadequate conservative cocktail of a "stimulus"...irony at its finest)
  
  This is from BHO's most recent radio address:
  
  "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."
  
  That is a full endorsement of every unfounded and disproved right-wing economic fallacy in two sentences. The confidence fairy, the false-equivalence between the People of the United states and their impressive coffers and individual families; the absolute myth of expansionary austerity...it's all right there from the socialist anti-christ prince himself.
  
  This is the great progressive hope ladies and gentlemen...reading right from the Conservative's playbook doing everything conservatives would have him do and yet their disdain for him could not be any greater....and that is where David Brooks comes in.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
  
  
  "The Republicans have changed American politics since they took control of the House of Representatives. They have put spending restraint and debt reduction at the top of the national agenda. They have sparked a discussion on entitlement reform. They have turned a bill to raise the debt limit into an opportunity to put the U.S. on a stable fiscal course.
  
  Republican leaders have also proved to be effective negotiators. They have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them. The Democrats have agreed to tie budget cuts to the debt ceiling bill. They have agreed not to raise tax rates. They have agreed to a roughly 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to revenue increases, an astonishing concession.
  
  Moreover, many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.
  
  If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.
  
  A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.
  
  The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary. (***Otherwise make the tax code more efficient and more economically neutral!!! The Heritage Foundation's Holy Grail!!!!)
  
  This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.
  
  But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
  
  The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
  
  The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
  
  The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
  
  The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
  
  But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. (which are just inefficient/non-neutral spending by another name) Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
  
  Over the past week, Democrats have stopped making concessions. They are coming to the conclusion that if the Republicans are fanatics then they better be fanatics, too.
  
  The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.
  
  If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.
  
  And they will be right."
  
  
  So there it is folks....the democrats and republicans have both chosen the wrong policy of focusing on the deficit as opposed to unemployment...the long term instead of the short term....willing to accept the waste of all the human talent and capital and potential productivity for the foreseeable future....willing to ensure the perpetual misery of millions of Americans when it doesn't have to be that way....and yet the impenetrable stomping of their feet and ignorance of the now majority of the republican party can't even let this country do that right.
  
  When everyone in power is governing more to the right than Ronald Reagan and half the country can't even see it and cries "socialism!"...I don't know what to say.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I really, really, really like David Brooks. Him and David Ignatius are my two favorite Op-Ed writers (George Will next).
  Brooks is the classical moderate conservative, old school HW Bush style.
  Over the past few months, Brooks has been writing pieces sort of like this that make a lot of sense.
  He makes a valid argument. If it were only that simple though. The ugly politics is front and center though, stopping any progress. He also discounts the influence of the Conservative caucus.
  But, still a nice read and breath of fresh air.
• fish82

  

  Not one more goddamn dime. When will you people get it through your skulls?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I get where Brooks is coming from but the problem truly will not be solved (or start to be solved) until we simply don't spend more -- not by giving the government yet more money to waste. I don't see why that concept is so difficult to understand, either. I guess the Democrats are so hooked on government programs they simply cannot begin to comprehend the idea of just cutting programs and reducing spending -- even though they've all undoubtedly had to do it at some point in their own lives.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Writerbuckeye;822104 wrote:I get where Brooks is coming from but the problem truly will not be solved (or start to be solved) until we simply don't spend more -- not by giving the government yet more money to waste. I don't see why that concept is so difficult to understand, either. I guess the Democrats are so hooked on government programs they simply cannot begin to comprehend the idea of just cutting programs and reducing spending -- even though they've all undoubtedly had to do it at some point in their own lives.

  
  I think he was also getting at the fact that R's are hooked on no taxes and will fight to the end for them like D's will fight for Government programs.
  R's can't comprehend going for closing loopholes for the fear it will be called a tax increase (to increase revenue, but keep rates the same)
  
  Both sides are blinded by politics.
• believer

  

  This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue and we do not have a tax revenue problem. We have an out of control SPENDING addiction.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;821393 wrote:Despite
  This is from BHO's most recent radio address:
  
  "Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can't afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."
  
  That is a full endorsement of every unfounded and disproved right-wing economic fallacy in two sentences. The confidence fairy, the false-equivalence between the People of the United states and their impressive coffers and individual families; the absolute myth of expansionary austerity...it's all right there from the socialist anti-christ prince himself.

  
  Boat - I've read dozens of your posts before. You appear to be an educated, intelligent, and thoughtful person. While I rarely agree with you, I appreciate your viewpoint.
  
  Having written that, there is no way you believe what Barry said and I've copied above.....right? This President has no inclination to reduce spending, just the exact opposite. He will say and do anything, as most politicians are want to do, in order to be elected. He reads the polls, he knows the pulse of the people, he knows Americans believe government spends too much...he may be learning on the job, but he knows how to read. He knows what people want to hear, but he has NO INTENTION of reducing spending. Don't believe me? Check out his 2 budgets submitted.
  
  He has helped run up the largest yearly budget deficits EVER...twice. Now we are to believe he didn't really mean it? We are to believe that austerity is the way to go, not spend spend spend spend? Come on, Boat. You may be Obama's best backer, but you can't possibly buy his line of bullbutter....right?
• coyotes22

  

  BGFalcons82;823564 wrote:Boat - I've read dozens of your posts before. You appear to be an educated, intelligent, and thoughtful person. While I rarely agree with you, I appreciate your viewpoint.
  
  Having written that, there is no way you believe what Barry said and I've copied above.....right? This President has no inclination to reduce spending, just the exact opposite. He will say and do anything, as most politicians are want to do, in order to be elected. He reads the polls, he knows the pulse of the people, he knows Americans believe government spends too much...he may be learning on the job, but he knows how to read. He knows what people want to hear, but he has NO INTENTION of reducing spending. Don't believe me? Check out his 2 budgets submitted.

  
  Yep, when I read that, first thing i thought, was he is already campaigning. Of course he will say that the government spends to much. It is what people want to hear, and Im sure he thinks it will get him reelected. Its time to be an easy talker, and get back to trying to be electable.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;821393 wrote: The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.
  
  The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

  Maybe I'm missing something, but is he trying to say the Republicans would be the ones deciding to default on the debt, and not Treasury Secretary Geithner? Isn't $2+ trillion in revenues more than enough to pay the debt?
  
  If the debt ceiling isn't raised, and the US defaults, it will be because the Treasury Secretary decided not to pay on the debt, and chose to use the money elsewhere.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;823830 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is he trying to say the Republicans would be the ones deciding to default on the debt, and not Treasury Secretary Geithner? Isn't $2+ trillion in revenues more than enough to pay the debt?
  
  If the debt ceiling isn't raised, and the US defaults, it will be because the Treasury Secretary decided not to pay on the debt, and chose to use the money elsewhere.

  
  This statement is absurd...if Congress authorizes more spending than Federal Revenues by definition 2 trillion is not enough to cover the federal outlays...Are you suggesting that the Treasury Secretary ought to freely usurp powers?
• Footwedge

  BGFalcons82;823564 wrote:Boat - I've read dozens of your posts before. You appear to be an educated, intelligent, and thoughtful person. While I rarely agree with you, I appreciate your viewpoint.
  
  Having written that, there is no way you believe what Barry said and I've copied above.....right? This President has no inclination to reduce spending, just the exact opposite. He will say and do anything, as most politicians are want to do, in order to be elected. He reads the polls, he knows the pulse of the people, he knows Americans believe government spends too much...he may be learning on the job, but he knows how to read. He knows what people want to hear, but he has NO INTENTION of reducing spending. Don't believe me? Check out his 2 budgets submitted.
  
  He has helped run up the largest yearly budget deficits EVER...twice. Now we are to believe he didn't really mean it? We are to believe that austerity is the way to go, not spend spend spend spend? Come on, Boat. You may be Obama's best backer, but you can't possibly buy his line of bullbutter....right?

  Every president since 1972 has said that the government spends too much....not just Barry. Even Reagan said the government spends too much....and percentage wise, Reagan slaughtered Barry's spending record. I would be very careful in who I play the "he's saying anything to get elected" card.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;823564 wrote:Boat - I've read dozens of your posts before. You appear to be an educated, intelligent, and thoughtful person. While I rarely agree with you, I appreciate your viewpoint.
  
  Having written that, there is no way you believe what Barry said and I've copied above.....right? This President has no inclination to reduce spending, just the exact opposite. He will say and do anything, as most politicians are want to do, in order to be elected. He reads the polls, he knows the pulse of the people, he knows Americans believe government spends too much...he may be learning on the job, but he knows how to read. He knows what people want to hear, but he has NO INTENTION of reducing spending. Don't believe me? Check out his 2 budgets submitted.
  
  He has helped run up the largest yearly budget deficits EVER...twice. Now we are to believe he didn't really mean it? We are to believe that austerity is the way to go, not spend spend spend spend? Come on, Boat. You may be Obama's best backer, but you can't possibly buy his line of bullbutter....right?

  
  You are aware that the reason he ran up those large deficits was to prevent what most economists including classical economists (except for goldbugs and Ron Paulistas and economists outside the mainstream) said would otherwise be a disaster. He even campaigned against democrat healthcare proposals that would have been projected not to decrease the deficit (whether the healthcare plan will actually decrease the deficit is another matter but that is what the CBO projects and what Obama pumped up).
  
  You have no empirical evidence, none, that Obama is some kind of big spending keynesian or socialist. Any socialist measure, such as buying up GM was an extreme emergency measure and his administration is working fast to divest themselves of any such entities. The man has been preaching deficit, deficit, deficit and a reasonably person would have no other inclination to believe that he has not adopted all of the conservative economic policies such as expansionary austerity unless you believe he is lying.
  
  BG, you believe that BHO is willingly trying to destroy the American economy and America as we know it...you say he desires such....you have said as much as this forum....and you've provided no evidence to support such claims. I have claimed that BHO is not a big government liberal and have provided testimony right from his own mouth to his endorsing all of the conservative economic principles which can be supported by his actions (beyond the emergency measures he took in the wake of the financial crisis).
  
  And, if your beef is with the measures he took in his first year in office....TARP, Stimulus....your beef is not with Obama but every mainstream economist who isn't an austrian.
  
  All we have is objective manifestations of his intent and his government policies...we can't rely on what you subjectively believe to be in Obama's heart when you have no objective evidence to support your claims (beyond emergency measures that still were very conservative by any measure; tax cuts like the ones conservatives won't give up in the budget debates, accelerated depreciation for capital expenditures, appropriations to states, etc.)
• believer

  

  Footwedge;823859 wrote:Every president since 1972 has said that the government spends too much....not just Barry. Even Reagan said the government spends too much....and percentage wise, Reagan slaughtered Barry's spending record.

  I'm not going to defend Reagan's spending habits because there's no question he spent money, but to claim he slaughtered Obama's record breaking spending habits is just plain nuts.
  
  Yes, yes this is a link to Heritage.org but all the charts are from government sources: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-spending
• coyotes22

  

  believer;823882 wrote:I'm not going to defend Reagan's spending habits because there's no question he spent money, but to claim he slaughtered Obama's record breaking spending habits is just plain nuts.
  
  Yes, yes this is a link to Heritage.org

  
  Liberals wont read past this.
• stlouiedipalma

  fish82;822093 wrote:Not one more goddamn dime. When will you people get it through your skulls?

  Writerbuckeye;822104 wrote:I get where Brooks is coming from but the problem truly will not be solved (or start to be solved) until we simply don't spend more -- not by giving the government yet more money to waste. I don't see why that concept is so difficult to understand, either. I guess the Democrats are so hooked on government programs they simply cannot begin to comprehend the idea of just cutting programs and reducing spending -- even though they've all undoubtedly had to do it at some point in their own lives.

  believer;822183 wrote:This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue and we do not have a tax revenue problem. We have an out of control SPENDING addiction.

  BGFalcons82;823564 wrote:Boat - I've read dozens of your posts before. You appear to be an educated, intelligent, and thoughtful person. While I rarely agree with you, I appreciate your viewpoint.
  
  Having written that, there is no way you believe what Barry said and I've copied above.....right? This President has no inclination to reduce spending, just the exact opposite. He will say and do anything, as most politicians are want to do, in order to be elected. He reads the polls, he knows the pulse of the people, he knows Americans believe government spends too much...he may be learning on the job, but he knows how to read. He knows what people want to hear, but he has NO INTENTION of reducing spending. Don't believe me? Check out his 2 budgets submitted.
  
  He has helped run up the largest yearly budget deficits EVER...twice. Now we are to believe he didn't really mean it? We are to believe that austerity is the way to go, not spend spend spend spend? Come on, Boat. You may be Obama's best backer, but you can't possibly buy his line of bullbutter....right?

  jhay78;823830 wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but is he trying to say the Republicans would be the ones deciding to default on the debt, and not Treasury Secretary Geithner? Isn't $2+ trillion in revenues more than enough to pay the debt?
  
  If the debt ceiling isn't raised, and the US defaults, it will be because the Treasury Secretary decided not to pay on the debt, and chose to use the money elsewhere.

  
  And all of you who blindly follow the hard line will probably be the first to whine and bitch when we default. Brooks is right. The Republicans have a great deal lined up in front of them and they're too stupid to take it. They'll risk throwing it all away so their wealthy donors can keep their loopholes. That's what this argument is all about, as the Dems are prepared to give them the spending cuts they want.
  
  How will it look when Obama and the Dems allow the R's to play their game of brinksmanship and then he issues an executive order based on the 14th Amendment raising the debt ceiling without giving them what they want?
• BGFalcons82

  

  BG, you believe that BHO is willingly trying to destroy the American economy and America as we know it...you say he desires such....you have said as much as this forum....and you've provided no evidence to support such claims. I have claimed that BHO is not a big government liberal and have provided testimony right from his own mouth to his endorsing all of the conservative economic principles which can be supported by his actions (beyond the emergency measures he took in the wake of the financial crisis).

  Yes, I believe he hates capitalism.
  Yes, I believe that he desires his brand of "social justice" for everyone. How is that defined??? Better aks him, he's the dictionary.
  Yes, I believe that thinks the evil rich need their largesse re-distributed to the masses. Why? Because he said so during the campaign.
  Yes, I believe that he wants energy costs to "necessarily skyrocket" (his own words) so that his vision of green and renewable energy will take hold.
  Yes, I believe he wants a single-payer healthcare system because he said so.
  Yes, I believe he would love to unionize the country as much as humanly possible.
  Yes, I believe he would love nothing better than to make each and every American dependent on the government in their daily lives.
  
  Now, you want links to where he said these things? You want links to articles proving these? You want a treatise on the Obama presidency? I'm not going to provide them. You need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching what he's doing to understand why I believe these things. For you to believe that he's wanting to cut spending and reduce the deficit is to be blind to his actions. He will say anything to be re-elected. Go back to his 2008 speeches...how much of that garbage has he enacted? Is there anything he's said that you don't believe?
  
  For you to claim he's a conservative is to be a total ignoramous. Unfortunately, there are millions that believe each and every word that falls from his lips and could care the fuck less in what he does.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;823856 wrote:This statement is absurd...if Congress authorizes more spending than Federal Revenues by definition 2 trillion is not enough to cover the federal outlays...Are you suggesting that the Treasury Secretary ought to freely usurp powers?

  
  I was suggesting that he could choose to pay the interest on our debt (sorry I didn't make that clear), not that it would be his fault everything else isn't covered.
  
  I don't think Republicans are saying defaulting on other debts would be desirable or necessary. But they are saying that there needs to be consequences in the form of spending cuts, etc. in order to raise the "ceiling" yet again.
• wgh raider

  BG typical way out there right wing garbage. being way to the right will win nothing.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;824245 wrote:Yes, I believe he hates capitalism.
  Yes, I believe that he desires his brand of "social justice" for everyone. How is that defined??? Better aks him, he's the dictionary.
  Yes, I believe that thinks the evil rich need their largesse re-distributed to the masses. Why? Because he said so during the campaign.
  Yes, I believe that he wants energy costs to "necessarily skyrocket" (his own words) so that his vision of green and renewable energy will take hold.
  Yes, I believe he wants a single-payer healthcare system because he said so.
  Yes, I believe he would love to unionize the country as much as humanly possible.
  Yes, I believe he would love nothing better than to make each and every American dependent on the government in their daily lives.
  
  Now, you want links to where he said these things? You want links to articles proving these? You want a treatise on the Obama presidency? I'm not going to provide them. You need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching what he's doing to understand why I believe these things. For you to believe that he's wanting to cut spending and reduce the deficit is to be blind to his actions. He will say anything to be re-elected. Go back to his 2008 speeches...how much of that garbage has he enacted? Is there anything he's said that you don't believe?
  
  For you to claim he's a conservative is to be a total ignoramous. Unfortunately, there are millions that believe each and every word that falls from his lips and could care the fuck less in what he does.

  
  LOL...you're the one blind to his ACTIONS. For instance, the single-payer healthcare thing he said at some union event on camera years ago...and even if he believed that in his heart he has not governed that way and has felt the ire of democrats and liberals for it.
  
  There is zero evidence that he would "love nothing better than to make each and every American dependent on the government in their daily lives.
  
  The fact is that if you put his policies on the table and compared them to Ronald Reagan...he has been more serious about deficits, just as unilaterally willing to use executive power for foreign affairs....offered to cut spending infinitely more and has not even considered raising marginal rates for everyone like Reagan did. He's even recently come out and put cuts to medicare and social security on the table. His healthcare plan that he passed with a near supermajority of libs was Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and Newt Gingrich's plan in the 90's. His healthcare plan is the only way we can save our healthcare system from losing private insurance because their costs have risen even higher than medicare's. His whole economic team is from wall street and those who are left are going on MSNBC preaching about the Confidence Fairy.
  
  These are the real hard facts. You're relying on obscure statements which match your predetermined opinion and ignoring the much weightier evidence to the contrary. Because he once said the phrase "spread the wealth around" to a balding guy from my gf's village does not compare to the fact that he has preserved the low top marginal rate and ensured that the wealth transfer taxes will be lower than their historical average for the foreseeable future.
  
  The guy is probably as much of a charlatan as any recent politician...He got elected on "hope" and "change" but is largely the same...all we have to go by is what we've got done policy wise and the proof is in the pudding. But like the article I posted in the other thread shows...facts don't matter.
  
  ***but before I finish...you're suggesting that I'm ignorant for believing everything he says when I'm merely looking at his policy initiatives and what his economic team is going around saying. He had freakin Goolsbee! Goolsbee repeating the lies of expansionary austerity on the Sunday talk shows before he quit! Why do you think he quit?!
  
  YOU are the one who is choosing to latch onto random statements as evidence of him being a secret socialist dark prince. You are the one who is not paying attention to the real policy actions.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;824245 wrote:Yes, I believe he hates capitalism.
  Yes, I believe that he desires his brand of "social justice" for everyone. How is that defined??? Better aks him, he's the dictionary.
  Yes, I believe that thinks the evil rich need their largesse re-distributed to the masses. Why? Because he said so during the campaign.
  Yes, I believe that he wants energy costs to "necessarily skyrocket" (his own words) so that his vision of green and renewable energy will take hold.
  Yes, I believe he wants a single-payer healthcare system because he said so.
  Yes, I believe he would love to unionize the country as much as humanly possible.
  Yes, I believe he would love nothing better than to make each and every American dependent on the government in their daily lives.
  
  Now, you want links to where he said these things? You want links to articles proving these? You want a treatise on the Obama presidency? I'm not going to provide them. You need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching what he's doing to understand why I believe these things. For you to believe that he's wanting to cut spending and reduce the deficit is to be blind to his actions. He will say anything to be re-elected. Go back to his 2008 speeches...how much of that garbage has he enacted? Is there anything he's said that you don't believe?
  
  For you to claim he's a conservative is to be a total ignoramous. Unfortunately, there are millions that believe each and every word that falls from his lips and could care the fuck less in what he does.

  
  You're insane in this regard.
  
  That's exactly like saying that Bush was just out to finish his dad's fight and only wanted oil and knew about 9/11. Batshit crazy.
• majorspark

  

  BoatShoes;823869 wrote:You are aware that the reason he ran up those large deficits was to prevent what most economists including classical economists (except for goldbugs and Ron Paulistas and economists outside the mainstream) said would otherwise be a disaster. He even campaigned against democrat healthcare proposals that would have been projected not to decrease the deficit (whether the healthcare plan will actually decrease the deficit is another matter but that is what the CBO projects and what Obama pumped up)

  Most of "greatest" minds in Science and Geography once believed the earth was flat. Those that contended otherwise, nutbags. Just sayin.
  
  I have no doubt the stimulus and the running of deficits have prevented us from the immediate affects of much greater economic pain. I see it like this. The road ahead led to a steep drop into a deep valley. We chose to take the curvy road that hides the ups and downs of our economic bus but its end is the cliff. Will we jump of the smoother curvy road and descend into the valley? Its just to rough and bumpy I guess. We will just be content to take the smooth left and then right turn till we run right off the cliff.
  
  I would argue we needed to descend into the valley of so called "disaster" to be forced to make the hard choices needed to survive. You don't change bad decisions by bailouts you prop them up with cushions. Sometimes it takes hitting the rocks to change. I have been there. I sat face to face with a bankruptcy lawyer. I rejected it and never filed it. A young businessman with a good product yet made the mistake of wagering too much debt against that product. If I was bailed out along the way in lieu of the threat of bankruptcy I likely would not have changed how I operated my business.
  
  What I learned was my business had to be limited in scope. It had to turn customers away and allow them to get their products from some one else or develop them on their own. I could not cater to everyone. I could not continue to incur debt in order to service all. I wanted to please everyone (much like our politicians except they are not spending their own money). I had to draw a line based on my resources (government should be no different). With no "safety net" my rapid decent into the valley was swift. At times I thought it was going to cost me everything, including my wife and the division of my family. Thankfully this did not happen for me personally. If the federal government does not change its spending practices soon it will unfortunately experience the division of its family.
  
  I was not over the cliff but in a deep valley and it took this personal "disaster" to radically change how I conducted my business. I am so thankful for it. I made radical changes I never would have had I not been in the midst of a "disaster". I limited my operation based on my resources and to those that needed it the most. Today I have retired all my debts except for my mortgage and a small business loan. No more deficit spending for majorspark.
  
  My point in applying this to the federal government is they will never posses the political will to radically change and operate in an economically sound manner without sever economic forces driving them to it. So much more severe because they are spending other peoples money and most of them are personally financially sound.
• I Wear Pants

  Valid point there majorspark although back then logic and reason and scientific thought weren't really the standards they are now.
  
  Defaulting will not be a good thing and to make it seem like a simple matter like a bankruptcty is distorting what will happen.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "he has been more serious about deficits,"
  
  Funny way of showing it, if ACTIONS is part of the defining category.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;824389 wrote:Valid point there majorspark although back then logic and reason and scientific thought weren't really the standards they are now.

  Point taken. The earth was flat majority was nothing more than a popular theory. It could not be scientifically proven at the time. I do not doubt the economic theory that absent the bailouts and stimulus our nation would have experienced for all intents and purposes an economic disaster for many Americans. I only argue it would not have brought about our demise as a nation. I argue it would have provided an economic force to set our priorities straight. We would have come out better.
  
  Those that rail against the wars as economic anchors. Anyone doubt had the natural consequences of bad economic decisions been allowed to take place instead of temporarily cushioned that the wars would have continued to progress. You know the answer. You can see for yourself change can not be made in this area as others in the current political climate. But if Americans were allowed to immediately experience the financial consequences of their leaders choices, radical change would occur.
  

  I Wear Pants;824389 wrote:Defaulting will not be a good thing and to make it seem like a simple matter like a bankruptcty is distorting what will happen.

  Of course defaulting is not a good thing. Default only means you at least temporarily can't meet the terms of your obligations. Bankruptcy is worse. It means you have little or no intentions of meeting your obligations and are seeking legal intervention in mediating your assets and obligations. The creditor is assured a loss in bankruptcy.
  
  In my business I never declared bankruptcy. I did default on some of the terms of my creditors as to scheduled payment obligations. The very reason I refused to declare bankruptcy was to not give my creditors the shaft.
• majorspark

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;824392 wrote:"he has been more serious about deficits,"
  
  Funny way of showing it, if ACTIONS is part of the defining category.

  I agree. When it comes to congressional spending and deficits he is as scared of the veto pen as Reagan and Bush.