A new poll released on Wednesday found that most Americans oppose an increase in the debt ceiling, but at the same time support few potential cuts in the federal budget.
The Ipsos/Reuters poll found that 71% of those surveyed oppose increasing the debt limit. This was true even of the half sample who were told that "not raising the debt limit would damage the US' sovereign debt rating, which is like our credit rating: it would seriously damage our credibility abroad, would make it much more difficult for us to borrow in the future, and would likely push up interest rates."
Yeah, pause and reflect time. Even when told what would happen should we default on our debt as a country, still 71% of people want to detonate our economy. That's not even close to debatable on this being an overwhelming majority.
If I'm a Republican, I'm doing everything I can to beat Dems over the head with this poll and demand the sun, moon, and the stars in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. They'll do it, too.
March is going to be a titanic brawl in Congress. I guarantee it.
[UPDATE] Felix Salmon notes that if the ceiling isn't raised, default won't be instant, but cuts will need to be made. Coordinating all those inlays and outlays is Tim Geithner's official job at Treasury:
But maybe the smartest thing for Geithner to do would simply be to stop paying the salaries of members of Congress and their staffs. It probably wouldn’t take long, in that event, for Congress to vote Obama the debt-ceiling raise he needs.
Now there's an idea.
Posts
22 comments:
Yes, how dare the unwashed masses want to stop government from bankrupting our kids and grand-kids.
I don't think there's going to be a "titanic brawl" at all. I think the Republicans in Congress and more than a few Democrats will refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
Anyone who votes for it, especially in the House, is gone in January 2013.
Bye Democrats!
Oh No!
And speaking of "liberalism as a mental disorder" please take note that the idea of the government being forced to spend within its means, to stop borrowing money from Communist China, to make the invasive federal nanny state smaller and to give the people their hard-earned money back to them instead of stealing it from them is "scary" to liberals like Zandar!
I continue to worry about his mental state and you should as well...
Well, on the other hand, the head of the Chamber of Commerce said on Wednesday that the hike in the debt ceiling "will be done." That's what you were predicting a while back, Zandar, right? That it would be hap-pen because our corporate overlords want it to happen? I still think that's quite possible.
The poll is disturbing, but it just represents the disconnect between ordinary citizens and the community of politicians/political journalists/economists/bloggers/political mavens. When ordinary citizens gets in financial trouble, it's simple: they owe more than they have. Their problem is debt. So they see the government that way. They don't understand that government borrowing now can actually have positive effects, including positive effects on the debt, in the future.
A smart president would try to explain that in layman's terms: "If you're unemployed, you might think it's crazy to spend more money or borrow more. But if you do it, for instance, to get training in a profession where there's job growth, that might be an example of spending money now so you can make more money in the future. It's not reckless spending -- it's an investment." And then extrapolate that to government stimulus efforts. But the political class doesn't understand what it is that the general public doesn't understand.
A smart president would try to explain that in layman's terms:...
You're smarter than I thought. That's an excellent point.
Here's how I counter it. If someone borrows money for training so that they can make money in the future, they still have to pay back what was borrowed. So when someone gets a job and gets paid, part of that after-tax net income will go to do that. But, that means someone will not be able to spend that after-tax net income on anything that might interfere with their ability to pay the borrowed money back. Unfortunately, the opposite is exactly what the government has done regularly over the last several decades, finding all kinds of new things (whatever those things are) to spend borrowed money on without worrying about paying it back. It has gone on massively the last two years, just as it has gone on massively the previous eight years and the previous 40 years. The general public understands that part of it very well.
This is perfect proof of how "pure democracy" can't work, especially not with the educational system and mass media we're subjected to these days. The reason this poll result occurs is because the people polled don't understand the consequences of defaulting on sovereign debt, nor did the pollsters explain it to them.
If the followup question had been, "Do you support or oppose hyperinflation that raises the price of a loaf of bread to $25, and the price of a flat screen TV to $25,000?" what do you think the result would have been?
An even better analogy is student loans for someone who isn't expected to finish their degree.
When the world figures out our government will never pay them back, the game ends anyway and we end up in default.
Better to take the pain now then the disaster later.
"The poll is disturbing, but it just represents the disconnect between ordinary citizens and the community of politicians/political journalists/economists/bloggers/political mavens."
No, it represents the elitism of those bloggers that they know better than 71% of the American people.
"The reason this poll result occurs is because the people polled don't understand the consequences of defaulting on sovereign debt, nor did the pollsters explain it to them."
They understand it only too well: the national debt has gone from $7 trillion to $14 trillion in the space of 4 years. It's time to take the credit card away from both parties.
In fact, when Bush took office the national debt was $5.6 trillion. It was $8 trillion when he left. Bush added $2.4 trillion in 8 years.
Obama has added 6 trillion in two.
You tell me why 71% of Americans are against the debt ceiling raise again?
Pssst ZCP, it's not as simple as playing the angry daddy and spanking bare butts will make every thing totally fairytale right. lol
No I don't think the American people understand it. You know why? Because they didn't fight to keep their jobs, they didn't fight for their wages. They swallowed the 3 tax breaks for the rich, 1 for them. They swallowed 12% of the workforce that is unionized is wrecking the job market and NOT the business leaders themselves with their contracts, wage cutting and outsourcing ways. They swallowed two wars.
They just swallow everything some rich white conservative feed them.
Here's how this is going to work. Republicans will raise the debt ceiling. They will feed their base some dumbass excuse as to why they were hypocrits. The dumbass base will buy it as they have decades now.
Under no circumstances will republicans put their rich white conservative benefactors in financial jeopardy.
Can we at least get the facts straight about the national debt, please?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4872310-503544.html
"By the time George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, the National Debt stood at $5.7-trillion. He ran up more debt faster than nearly all of his predecessors combined: just under $4.9-trillion.
The National Debt stood at $10.6-trillon on the day Barack Obama took office."
Thank you.
"Fiscal policymakers also face a challenging policy environment. Our nation's fiscal position has deteriorated appreciably since the onset of the financial crisis and the recession. To a significant extent, this deterioration is the result of the effects of the weak economy on revenues and outlays, along with the actions that were taken to ease the recession and steady financial markets. In their planning for the near term, fiscal policymakers will need to continue to take into account the low level of economic activity and the still-fragile nature of the economic recovery.
"However, an important part of the federal budget deficit appears to be structural rather than cyclical; that is, the deficit is expected to remain unsustainably elevated even after economic conditions have returned to normal. For example, under the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) so-called alternative fiscal scenario, which assumes that most of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 are made permanent and that discretionary spending rises at the same rate as the gross domestic product (GDP), the deficit is projected to fall from its current level of about 9 percent of GDP to 5 percent of GDP by 2015, but then to rise to about 6-1/2 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. In subsequent years, the budget outlook is projected to deteriorate even more rapidly, as the aging of the population and continued growth in health spending boost federal outlays on entitlement programs. Under this scenario, federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 185 percent of the GDP by 2035, up from about 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010."
Ben Bernanke, Senate Testimony, 1/7/2011
"The CBO projections, by design, ignore the adverse effects that such high debt and deficits would likely have on our economy. But if government debt and deficits were actually to grow at the pace envisioned in this scenario, the economic and financial effects would be severe. Diminishing confidence on the part of investors that deficits will be brought under control would likely lead to sharply rising interest rates on government debt and, potentially, to broader financial turmoil. Moreover, high rates of government borrowing would both drain funds away from private capital formation and increase our foreign indebtedness, with adverse long-run effects on U.S. output, incomes, and standards of living.
"It is widely understood that the federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path. Yet, as a nation, we have done little to address this critical threat to our economy. Doing nothing will not be an option indefinitely; the longer we wait to act, the greater the risks and the more wrenching the inevitable changes to the budget will be. By contrast, the prompt adoption of a credible program to reduce future deficits would not only enhance economic growth and stability in the long run, but could also yield substantial near-term benefits in terms of lower long-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence. Plans recently put forward by the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and other prominent groups provide useful starting points for a much-needed national conversation about our medium- and long-term fiscal situation. Although these various proposals differ on many details, each gives a sobering perspective on the size of the problem and offers some potential solutions.
"Of course, economic growth is affected not only by the levels of taxes and spending, but also by their composition and structure. I hope that, in addressing our long-term fiscal challenges, the Congress will seek reforms to the government's tax policies and spending priorities that serve not only to reduce the deficit but also to enhance the long-term growth potential of our economy--for example, by encouraging investment in physical and human capital, by promoting research and development, by providing necessary public infrastructure, and by reducing disincentives to work and to save. We cannot grow out of our fiscal imbalances, but a more productive economy would ease the tradeoffs that we face."
Ben Bernanke, Senate Testimony, 1/7/2011
I oppose increasing the debt ceiling for the simple reason that we, as Chairman Bernanke said, have to take action now. I have no interest in seeing Federal debt hit 185% of GDP by the time I hope to retire.
I think Asariel wins this thread.
The reason we are given that we must raise the debt ceiling is that otherwise America will lose our AAA credit rating and that will be a disaster for the economy.
If we keep borrowing that happens anyway. There is no way we keep the AAA rating with our debt to GDP ratio at 60% and rising.
Since disaster happens either way, if Obama had real courage, he'd agree to draw the line in March.
"Can we at least get the facts straight about the national debt, please?"
OK! Thanks for settling the fact that Obama is raising the national debt at more than twice the rate Bush did as President.
Like I said, time to take the credit card away from both parties (and from Ben Bernanke especially!)
Don't look at me! I've been against all tax cuts, against our last two wars, and for single-payer health insurance, which would have saved barrels of money for the government, individuals, and employers.
And I voted for Perot twice, so I didn't just hear the music in the last year or two.
More proven lies from ZCP, the biggest fraud on the internet. The daily spew of deliberate falsehoods is what killed Christina Green. Stop murdering children with your lies, child assassin.
I think Asariel wins this thread.
I think I'm both disturbed and appalled to find that ZCP agrees with me.
Is it too late to change my answer?
(Joking, but only just.)
libertarians (and their social darwinist bullshit) suck. ZCP agreeing proves what a colossal tool you are, that's all.
Social Darwinist? Me? I think you must have me confused with your straw man.
I say that the first and greatest responsibility the government has is to be a wise steward of the money we entrust to it by paying our taxes[1]. Emergencies happen, true, but the government is not being a wise steward or our wealth by mortgaging the future of three or four generations of Americans to pay for short term political victories.
A Social Darwinist would say "it's all mine, you can't have it unless you can take it from me, so fuck off."
Not that I really expect you to understand the distinction, given that you are incapable of framing an argument beyond calling me a "colossal tool".
[1] As citizens, we have the obligation to pay taxes to support the business of the government that represents us, and to pay it in sufficient amounts to allow that business to be conducted. The government does not have the right to demand that we "pay our fair share" and then to determine what that fair share is.
No guys, I know and respect Asariel and I have for years now, see, he's an actual libertarian, complete with intellectually consistent positions, the ability to grasp nuance, and the power to adapt his positions to practical, reasonable applicable real-world situations (and actually he's more of a Hayekian/Austrian economic theory Bruce Wayne to my Keynsian technocratic aggregate demand model Reed Richards.)
What he is not is a bullshit pretend "free-market" libertarian who turns into a fascist asshole when it comes to abusing power against groups that don't agree with some of his positions, like so many "Republican libertarians" are.
I think we've done all the cutting we can really do (aside from ending the conflicts at Afghanistan and Iraq, which cost us quite a bit of moola, but as this will not happen, I assume that it will continue for a while longer [until Cheney's Ring of Doom is finally tossed into Mount MacGuffin]. We really need to admit that the upper tier tax cuts need to be eliminated, and that means soon.
Look, I know everyone's got a hard on for the private sector coming to the rescue but facing some harsh reality, that sector is only been truly strong while the government has been subsidizing it, directly through tax breaks, subsidies or big contracts, or indirectly via providing public research at a pittance, public lands and what have you. And as we have seen time and again, the private sector has failed without government intervention, partly because of the simple structure of an economy, but for the most part, because the big businesses are dominating the process by which they are monitored.
Despite all the sturm und drang about re-regulating industry and strengthening public unions leading to the utter downfall of the nation, it's simply not proven, and given the record of the people saying that, likely untrue in the first place.
Cuts only hurt the little guy and deprive us of the birthrights of citizenship that much more. I want those back, and to get away from the low rent aristocracy that runs things now.
Post a Comment