Consequences of a US default

[Gaspar]

Obama's center-right as far as Democratic politics go

I think that is a perception only held by the most progressive of liberals.  He never fails to make a speech that doesn't include some direction towards wealth redistribution, and his crowning achievement, the Obamacare bill, did not turn out as he intended.  His original hope was to develop or open the door to a single payer system.  Though he failed it still represents the largest distribution of wealth plan since Medicare.

You are correct to some extent.  He has become a corporatism liberal because he is beholden to several groups that can pull his political strings, and his close associations with the Gold Mansacks folks and the unions make him politically vulnerable if he does not tow the line for them, and make sure that tax money flows their way.  His desire to simply lead from behind makes him weak to such groups.

Based on his past and his writings (or whoever wrote for him), he is a proud liberal with a strong faith in government, and a hatred for the private sector.  In his book 'Dreams of My Father' he describes his one and only private sector job, as a financial adviser, as "working behind enemy lines."

His biggest risk is when he goes off prompter and says things that reveal his real philosophy.  This makes the liberals love him and the conservatives fear him.  Telling people that "you've made enough money", or throwing around the term "pay your fair share."  These terms show that he has little understanding of the fact that the American economy is built on the backs of the small business person, not on the backs of the poor.  The small business person already pays most of the taxes.  Also the term "The Rich" is his favorite term.  Reagan, Clinton, Bushes, very seldom used that term, especially in a derogatory sense.  Instead they recognized that the majority of people who fall under that slur are actually small businesses responsible for most of the economic horsepower of this country.

The saving grace is that he is not a very good leader.  He speaks well, but does not have the ability to execute.  So basically his classification by some as "right of center" is due to the fact that he is not very good at leading his own charge and backing up his rhetoric.  Though, the rhetoric alone is enough to stifle economic growth. . he indeed has the power to punish this country with his words alone.
 

[Conan71]

Not even from my perspective. He's been president now long enough for you to compare his record with the record of people like Nixon and Clinton and Reagan, all the way back to FDR, etc.  Especially regarding the content of his achievements and the compromises he's made, he's solidly center right. 

There's no political left left in our country, currently.  Sure, there's Bernie Sanders, and a few vocal Dem senators, but as an organized force -- outside the netroots -- it's dead in the water.  On a personal level, this is why I'm disappointed in Obama.  I believed he was going to articulate a compelling version of progressivism for the 21st century.  He very much did NOT do that, and has instead played inside ball, worked in many cases without explaining himself, and all around NOT marketing a vision of anything. 

Are you kidding me?  "Hope" and "Change" was so definitive, though!  (insert pic of your avatar here)

It was so nebulous, it allowed everyone to have all sorts of their own visions of hope and change.  It's truly unfortunate that President Obama seems to have been a disappointment to just about everyone.  Maybe next time people will look at real leadership qualities instead of voting for an idealogue with incredibly limited real-world leadership experience.

I would have far rather had Hillary Clinton in office than President Obama merely for the reason that she was probably somewhat of a co-president with former President Clinton (leadership), we know where she stands on issues, and she's a skilled politician who may be despised by quite a few people, but I think even many who despise her do respect her.  

I do find characterizations coming from the left pretty funny.  Someone who stands unwavering on principle like Speaker Boehner is called an "obstructionist".  President Obama compromises and you guys start calling him "center-right".  So you expect him to stand firm on left leaning principles, but it's unacceptable for a leader of the opposition to stand on his or her right leaning ones?

[nathanm]

I do find characterizations coming from the left pretty funny.  Someone who stands unwavering on principle like Speaker Boehner is called an "obstructionist".  President Obama compromises and you guys start calling him "center-right".  So you expect him to stand firm on left leaning principles, but it's unacceptable for a leader of the opposition to stand on his or her right leaning ones?

Compromise does not mean giving one side everything it wants and telling the other one to sod off. To use HCR as a glaring example, compromise would have been a public option. One side wants pure free market, the other wants single payer. An individual mandate is not a compromise. Or take the current situation. Compromise is agreeing to some spending cuts in return for getting some tax increases, not being to the right of the average Republican voter by agreeing to cut Social Security and Medicare to the tune of a couple trillion dollars and agreeing to no actual bracket increases, just some loophole closing and offseting even that with another damned tax holiday on repatriated profits.

And, speaking of the debt ceiling issue, since when did it become liberal to pay for the things you've already said you're going to pay for?

[Gaspar]

And, speaking of the debt ceiling issue, since when did it become liberal to pay for the things you've already said you're going to pay for?

We are responsible for paying entitlements and interest.  We are not yet responsible for future outlay.  Reduce that outlay and you have no need to lift the debt ceiling.  We are already far beyond the % of GDP that we should be spending.

Sorry for the simple answer but that's how I roll!

[nathanm]

We are responsible for paying entitlements and interest.  We are not yet responsible for future outlay.  Reduce that outlay and you have no need to lift the debt ceiling.  We are already far beyond the % of GDP that we should be spending.

That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.

[Conan71]

That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.

Why shouldn't they?  It's just Monopoly money anyhow, right Nathan?

[nathanm]

Why shouldn't they?  It's just Monopoly money anyhow, right Nathan?

I haven't thought about it enough to form an informed opinion. Viscerally, I have less of a problem with devaluing the dollar in the usual way than I do directly monetizing the deficit. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure that the mere act of minting the coin and depositing it in the government's account would be monetizing outlays (or debt), as there is no monetization until the notional funds are actually spent by the government.

Also, I have a hard time condemning us devaluing, although I'm not sure that other countries wouldn't attempt to keep their currencies weak and render our effort moot, precisely because most of our trading partners have been doing it since the collapse of Bretton Woods, and it has given them an artificially large trade surplus with us. Isn't that essentially the same thing as monetizing debt?

So yeah, no real opinion yet, just conflicting arguments in my head that I have yet to fully ruminate upon.

[Gaspar]

That's simply not true. The debt ceiling must be raised regardless of whether we make any new appropriations at all. That is, to pay for obligations we've already incurred. Unless you're saying the Treasury ought to mint itself a nice trillion dollar coin and deposit that into its bank account to pay for all the stuff we've already bought.

That's not true.  We have yet to exceed the debt ceiling.  Sure, we may exceed it, but that does not trigger a default unless we choose not to pay.  The ceiling is an engineered milestone, designed to control our spending (bahahahaha!).  The obligations we are responsible for are entitlements and interest payments to our creditors.  The rest is up to us to modify.

Cut spending!

[Gaspar]

[guido911]

Excellent and oh so true cartoon Gaspar.

[Teatownclown]

The Business crowd might just learn what a mistake it was to create this frankenstien theory of linking the defecit argument to raising the debt ceiling in the first place. The Business lobby was calling for meetings with the House Freshmen (read: Teabagging extremists) to impress upon them the seriousness of the catastrophy that they are bent on percipitating.
Unfortunately, we might all end up suffering the consequences of the GOP/Teabaggers misguided zealotry.

[TeeDub]

I still have yet to see a large scale catastrophe that will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

I think they have overused the fear card.   They voted the stimulus and bank bailouts because they screamed "MARTIAL LAW" and "RIOTS IN THE STREETS."    I don't know that will work again so soon.

[nathanm]

Submitted without comment for your consideration:

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Debt%20Ceiling%20Analysis%20FINAL_0.pdf

[Conan71]

That's a pretty sad metric on page 13 of the report Nathan posted.  Roughly 45% of our spending is on borrowed money.  Yeesh.

[we vs us]

For your reference:

A nice slideshow detailing who actually owns our debt, and who would be affected by a default. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7#

China isn't as big of a creditor as you probably think.