The budget battles

[Winstonm]

I'm uncertain about how we can get out of this mess, but I am confident that this expalins how we got into it:

 

[luke warm]

I hope that your city doesn't flood again.

my cousins and i thank you

 

Much of our financial strength is based on other nations trusting us to not act like complete fools.

i agree with you, and it's impossible not to raise the ceiling (as has been done in the past)... but we've already acted like fools by spending ourselves into this mess

[kenberg]

my cousins and i thank you

 

 

i agree with you, and it's impossible not to raise the ceiling (as has been done in the past)... but we've already acted like fools by spending ourselves into this mess

 

 

You live on the Mississippi? It's quite a river. As a child in St. Paul there were springs when I could ride my bike down to the water blocks away from where the river was supposed to be. Good luck.

 

 

And I agree with you (I hope there is no dispute) that we have heavily overspent. I would be very pleased if Boehner would say "Alright, the debt ceiling has to be raised. I got that. The threat is off the table. But guys, we have to get this under control and the President could help by not pretending we only have to tax the rich to solve this. The situation is past critical, let's get with it." Something like that, he can choose his own phrasing. But really this (perhaps phony perhaps real) threat to do something totally nuts unless everyone falls in line with his orders is not helping matters. I don't like being threatened with a destructive temper tantrum, I don't imagine that the President does either.

[phil_20686]

Are you insinuating that Turkey is a de facto theocracy? (Or, for that matter, Egypt?)

 

You made some remarkably stupids posts, but this one really takes the cake.

 

Turkey has some of the strictest laws governing separation of church and state in the Western world.

Secularism is one of the six arrows (Altı Ok) handed down by Ataturk.

 

Over the past 20 years or so, religious political parties have flourished. One of them is in charge of the government right now.

However, its laughable to characterize the country as a theocracy.

 

My implication was not that Turkey is a Theocracy, just that it could potentially become one despite its secular constitution, and that this is evidenced by many of its religiously orientated discrimination against non-Sunni Muslims. Further, Turkey seems to becoming more Islamic rather than less in its democracy.

 

Turkey is a place of mixed extremes. On the one hand they have (constitutionally) banned religious symbols in public buildings, including head scarves. On the other hand Turkey provides funding for (all) Sunni Imams. All school curricula contain mandatory lessons in Sunni theology. Further Non-Sunni groups have routinely faced government restrictions on practising their faith, including having religious buildings seized. It seems to me that Turkey is a really good example of a place that is secular in theory, but not in practice. I mean, the Dianet, which is the ministry for reigious affairs, receives US$1bn of state funding and has as its mission brief "to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshipping places"*. It seems hard to claim that a state is secular (as you would understand it) when it has an official government department devoted to "enlightening" the public about its own brand of Islam. My point was that a secular state can be dominated by religious thinking, and the outlook of a particular religious group. This is exactly the case in Turkey, and turkey is rapidly becoming less secular. You can read your own state departments report here. (there might be a new report but that is the one I have a link for. Just put "religious" into find and you can get down to the good stuff)

 

As I understand it Egypt was in a similar position under Mubarak, it remains to be seen what it will do with its nascent democracy.

 

*The above quote is from article 136 of Turkey's constitution.

[phil_20686]

I had a random economics puzzle that has confused me a little to do with how one measures GDP.

 

Suppose I produces 10000 t-shirts at ten dollars a pop, then if I sell them all I have added $100000 dollars to GDP, suppose that the next year I get a new machine that makes them for $5 a pop, does that mean I have halved my contribution to GDP? GDP measures all the things that have been bought, at current prices. Obviously, if people spent the other half of the money on a finite (and non increasing) number of other goods then gdp should be constant. In practice though, some new economic service would spring up where I might be able to spend this extra money. Thus, the economy might in practice "grow".

 

So my question is this: Does change in GDP relate in any practical way to the purchasing power of the individuals? Or is it possible for GDP to stay flat while the purchasing power of individuals increases doe to lowering prices?

 

 

EDIT:

Ok, so I looked at some data sets on the internet, and according to them per capita income in the US has grown by nearly 500% since 1980, on a Purchasing power Parity measure. I.e, much more than GDP. The reason this seems to me to be important is that it means that in a funny way debt is becoming more expensive, since each dollar ends up being worth x t-shirts, and price decreases mean that x increases over time. Of course, we also increase the money supply, but the fact that PPP grows much faster than GDP seems to indicate that that is not a sufficient counterweight. I.e. If I save and buy in the future I get more bang for my buck, doe to increased efficiency of production for most items. This might make even reasonably innocuous deficit spending into a much worse strategy than it appears. OTOH, this is obviously not true for all items, like houses, where price increases outstrip inflation, and PPP increases. Trying to get my head around this is so confusing.

[hrothgar]

My implication was not that Turkey is a Theocracy, just that it could potentially become one despite its secular constitution, and that this is evidenced by many of its religiously orientated discrimination against non-Sunni Muslims. Further, Turkey seems to becoming more Islamic rather than less in its democracy.

 

Sorry, I didn't realize that when you wrote

 

Constitutional republics and Theocracies are not mutually exclusive. A secular state can be a de facto theocracy if the vast majority of the population belong to a given religion.

 

you were using "be" as a synonym for "can become"...

 

Hard to see how I could have made so elementary a mistake.

 

As for your comment about regarding mandatory lesson's in Sunni theology:

 

You're quite correct that Turkey has long had compulsory religious education, however, its a far leap to go from there to "theocracy". Indeed, Ataturk was a strong proponent of state lead religious instruction as a mechanism to control the clergy and limit the role of religion in the country. Unfortunately, all my Turkish history books are packed up at my folks, however, the following article is in accordance with what I learned back in the weird old days...

 

In fact, compulsory religious education in schools is compatible with secularist principles. In this matter Ataturk stated,

'Religion must be taken out from the hands of ignorant people, and the control should be given to the appropriate people.'

For these reasons, we will introduce compulsory religious education in our schools."

 

http://www.turkishreview.org/tr/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=222997

 

The article goes on to note that, in some case, goals seem to have shifted and "compulsory religious education" seemed to be drifting in a decidedly non-secular direction.

What I find interesting about this is that

 

Turkey was able to self correct

There is still - very much - a primacy of the court / legal system

The Turkish courts are referencing the Treaty of Lausanne as a core principal in interpreting Turkish law

 

This official justification of the acceptance of compulsory religious education by the military junta of the 1980s refers to the "undisputable" and "infallible" personal cult of Atatürk and tries to reconcile this policy choice with secularism and a modern idea of religious education in democratic and secular societies. Attempts at reconciling compulsory religious education in Turkey with the experience of Western democracies have not been confined to the views of the military founders of the 1982 Constitution. Referring occasionally to the wording of Article 24 of the Constitution, many supporters of compulsory religious education in Turkey argue that the courses in fact aim at providing students with knowledge about religion in general, Islam in particular and ethics.

 

So far as the wording of the Constitution is concerned, it is not easy to say that it is incorrect since the Constitution makes a distinction between "education and instruction in religious culture and ethics" and "other religious education." Three cases, all filed by Turkish citizens belonging to the Alevi community, one in the ECtHR (Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, 2007) and two others in the Danıştay, however, suggest that the compulsory education in religion has been implemented as a kind of catechistic instruction of Sunni Islam and discriminates against the Alevi identity.

 

Deciding on a case filed by the parents of a fourth grade student in primary school, the 5th Administrative Court in Istanbul ruled that the state authorities' denial of the parents' request that their child be exempted from compulsory religious courses violates both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mentioning the different types of religious education stipulated in Article 24 of the Constitution, the court decided that the current practice of compulsory religious instruction is against the Constitution and also violates Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, which requires government respect for parents' philosophical and religious beliefs in education, with an absolute failure of enabling the child to develop critical approaches to religious claims. This preliminary court decision of 2006 was approved by the Danıştay in 2008. In its 2008 decision, the Danıştay refers to the 2007 decision of the ECtHR. The importance of the dates is that even though the preliminary court decision had been made before the ECtHR explained its verdict on the case Hasan and Eylem Zengin vs. Turkey (the Zengin Case), the Istanbul court followed almost an identical line of reasoning.

 

The importance of the ECtHR decision in the Zengin case is that the court establishes the actual practice of compulsory religious education as violating the ECHR. According to the ECtHR:

 

"The right of parents to respect for their religious and philosophical convictions is grafted on to this fundamental right, and the first sentence does not distinguish, any more than the second, between State and private teaching. In short, the second sentence of Article 2 aims at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education, a possibility which is essential for the preservation of the 'democratic society' as conceived by the Convention. In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized. …

[luke warm]

You live on the Mississippi?

i live on the north shore of the lake, far enough from the river not to have much to worry about...

 

And I agree with you (I hope there is no dispute) that we have heavily overspent. I would be very pleased if Boehner would say "Alright, the debt ceiling has to be raised. I got that. The threat is off the table. But guys, we have to get this under control and the President could help by not pretending we only have to tax the rich to solve this. The situation is past critical, let's get with it."

i'd actually love it if it weren't necessary to raise the ceiling, but it is... our debt is too high, and (if this is true) too much of it is owned by the chinese

 

Something like that, he can choose his own phrasing. But really this (perhaps phony perhaps real) threat to do something totally nuts unless everyone falls in line with his orders is not helping matters. I don't like being threatened with a destructive temper tantrum, I don't imagine that the President does either.

it's stupid for thinking people to blame any one man or political party for this mess we're in... at the same time, it's foolish to criticize obama's part as due only to his failure to do away with the bush tax cuts... anyone who does so is truly a "drooler"... his policies have helped increase the debt to astounding numbers, quite apart from those cuts

[Winstonm]

it's stupid for thinking people to blame any one man or political party for this mess we're in... at the same time, it's foolish to criticize obama's part as due only to his failure to do away with the bush tax cuts... anyone who does so is truly a "drooler"... his policies have helped increase the debt to astounding numbers, quite apart from those cuts

 

I am certainly not an Obama fan, but I detested Dubbya and his bunch, yet I am unwilling to blame either one exclusively for this mess - if it is a mess.

 

While it is true that the national debt is high, it has no real effect unless we cannot place our bonds at a miminal cost. The Chinese are as dependent upon American markets as we are on their bond-buying that we have a kind of economic detente with them.

 

What we run is a quasi-Ponzi scheme where the bonds and interest are refinanced with new bonds. As long as we don't actually have to pay the interest out of GNP and someone is willing to buy our bonds, everything is sustainable. Reluctance to buy bond to refinance would be a killer, though, and it is that risk that is the real national security issue we face.

 

We can handle a lot of debt, but it is not unlimited. What we cannot afford is a military empire that does not pillage and plunder.

[PassedOut]

his policies have helped increase the debt to astounding numbers, quite apart from those cuts

Although you haven't named any of those policies -- do you have some particular offenders in mind? -- you can be sure that I oppose all policies of Obama that spend money unnecessarily.

 

The question, though, is how one deals with the excess spending, wasteful or not. The free lunch crowd refuses to take responsibility for clearing the debt by raising taxes, even though they have proposed spending cuts that eliminate only a small fraction of the deficit.

 

Solving the problem requires both cutting spending and increasing tax revenues. I see Obama agreeing to spending cuts and addressing health care costs.

 

I don't see his opponents agreeing to let any of the irresponsible tax cuts expire -- and they continue to demand much more in government spending than the government collects in taxes. A large portion of the US debt was authorized by the very legislators who refuse now to pay for it, preferring to dump that burden onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. So typical of the free lunch philosophy...

[kenberg]

it's stupid for thinking people to blame any one man or political party for this mess we're in.[/Quote]

 

Sure, and I wouldn't do so. Mr. Boehner is not responsible for the fix we are in. I do hold him responsible for what he says. He says that Republicans will not raise the debt ceiling unless his fiscal demands are met. Sarah Palin can think this is a great idea, no one actually cares what she says or thinks. Mr. Boehner is in a serious position of leadership and everyone will take this threat to heart. Empty threats are a really bad idea, so we must assume that he means it. If he is just having his fun, now would be a good time to stop it.

[cherdano]

it's stupid for thinking people to blame any one man or political party for this mess we're in...

 

True, but it's stupid not to blame the Republican members of congress for playing with fire the debt ceiling. Anyone knows it has to be raised, everyone agrees it should be done (including Boehner and McConnell), but they are taking it hostage to get concessions on reducing the deficit taxes for the rich.

 

The basic institutional problem is power and influence without accountability - since the Republicans control the House and can block the Senate, they have power; but since most voters will associate stuff going wrong with "the President is doing badly" there is no accountability for their actions, and they have no incentive to use their share of power responsibly.

[luke warm]

Although you haven't named any of those policies -- do you have some particular offenders in mind? -- you can be sure that I oppose all policies of Obama that spend money unnecessarily.

just one? ok, military spending

[PassedOut]

Although you haven't named any of those policies -- do you have some particular offenders in mind? -- you can be sure that I oppose all policies of Obama that spend money unnecessarily.

just one? ok, military spending

It's certainly true that Obama's Afghanistan policies have increased US spending there, and he had the option not to do that. Same with deploying the drones, taking action in Libya, and so on. Overall I feel that Obama has made his military decisions responsibly and after careful reflection, but I can see how folks could consider some of that spending to be unnecessary.

 

To me, the Bush invasion of Iraq was totally unnecessary (from the get-go), but I did support Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden.

 

There is always going to be some federal spending that I agree with and some that I don't. The same with you and with every other citizen, and we won't always agree on what is necessary and what is not. Those decisions should be debated with vigor, and those decisions won't always go the way we wanted.

 

Once those decisions are made, however, I believe that they should be paid for quickly by current taxes -- whether we agree with the spending or not. Why should future generations have to pay for poor decisions made today? Let them pay for their own poor decisions, not ours.

 

I have no problem with our representatives fighting tooth and nail about what spending to cut and what to keep. I know I won't agree with all the decisions, but that's life. Once that process is completed, however, taxes need to be set to pay for those decisions with current tax dollars. A little deficit in hard times, a little surplus in good times, but taxes basically in balance with spending. That should not be up for discussion.

 

Before 1980, there was a bipartisan consensus on that, and I'd like to see that restored. I strongly believe that paying as you go focuses attention on wasteful federal spending, while asking future taxpayers to pick up the tab takes away some of that urgent scrutiny.

 

Politicans who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

[helene_t]

Politicans who refuse to vote for taxes to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

I think it's a little harsh to blame the voters for all mistakes the politicians make. I also think it is wrong debating tactics since if you point the finger at a voter and says "it is your fault!" then his likely reaction is to dislike you and not take your advice.

 

Sure, if a voter expresses, to a poll agency's call agent, that he would be more likely to vote for a politician who votes for unfunded tax cuts, then that voter encourages the irresponsible behaviour and is therefore to blame.

 

But with the silly American/British election system you have only two options so you pick the lesser evil and you are unlikely to agree with everything the candidate stands for.

 

Heck, even with the Dutch and Danish systems in which there maybe be dozens of candidates that you can vote for without wasting your vote on chanceless candidates, I have always found myself voting for candidates that had (in my view) pretty disgusting views on certain issues.

[PassedOut]

I think it's a little harsh to blame the voters for all mistakes the politicians make. I also think it is wrong debating tactics since if you point the finger at a voter and says "it is your fault!" then his likely reaction is to dislike you and not take your advice.

From time to time people have given me advice of this sort, especially when I was a young man. I do try to keep my natural harshness in check these days (the Nietzsche quote is supposed to be my reminder), but not always successfully.

:(

[hrothgar]

just one? ok, military spending

 

I'm all for sharp cuts in the Defense Budget...

 

I suspect that Obama is as well. Most people think that the decision to move Leon Panetta from CIA Director to Secretary of Defense signals a serious shift in military spending. (Panetta's has enormous amounts of experience with budgetary matters and manuevering on Capital Hill)

 

With this said and done, there are a lot of limits on Obama's ability to make sharp cuts to the defense budget, especially where weapon's system procurements are involved. Look at all the insanity that ensued regarding the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It took years to kill that idiocy despite the fact that neither the Pentagon nor the executive branch wanted it.

 

I suspect that Obama's biggest room for manuever will involve military bases in Western Europe and Japan. However, I'm not sure how much long term savings this will entail.

 

I'd like to see us pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I hope that we're able to pull this one off.

[luke warm]

Politicans who refuse to set tax rates to pay for the spending they've authorized are completely irresponsible. So are the voters who support them.

i assume this also would apply to those politicians that refused to let the bush tax cuts expire... how did your congress(wo)men vote on that? did you vote for any of them?

[awm]

The unfortunate reality is that we live in a two-party system.

 

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget. While I consider extending the Bush tax cuts to have been a bad policy, I also consider the Ryan budget (which not only makes the Bush tax cuts permanent but further cuts rates for the top earners and slashes medicare in order to pay for it) to be even worse.

 

Given this choice, I'm not going to vote for the republican (who supports even worse policy) just to castigate the democrat for his free-luncher vote on the tax cuts. And I'm not going to "choose not to vote" because I think there is a clear difference between a politician who grudgingly accepts a bad compromise and a politician who actively advocates bad policy.

 

With that said, I'd be happy to support a progressive challenger in the democratic primary.

[Bbradley62]

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget.

I guess we call that a restricted choice. That's more than a lot of us get. In order to vote against Newt in 1998, I had to vote for a guy named Bats Pelphrey. Swear to God!

[luke warm]

It's likely that come November 2012, I will be given a choice between a democratic candidate who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts... and a republican candidate who supports the Ryan budget. ~~~ Given this choice, I'm not going to vote for the republican (who supports even worse policy) just to castigate the democrat for his free-luncher vote on the tax cuts.

that's fine, but you're also not the one who called such voters (and votes) "completely irresponsible"

[PassedOut]

how did your congress(wo)men vote on that? did you vote for any of them?

Our congressman, a tea party republican, is definitely irresponsible on fiscal matters. I don't condone stealing from our children and grandchildren, so I neither support him nor vote for him.

 

How about you? Under what conditions, if any, do you consider such stealing to be responsible? Or acceptable?

[kenberg]

I think we need more politicians named Bats Pelphrey. A man who can find his way through the darkest cave. Straighten up and fly right. Cats for Bats.

[luke warm]

Our congressman, a tea party republican, is definitely irresponsible on fiscal matters. I don't condone stealing from our children and grandchildren, so I neither support him nor vote for him.

 

How about you? Under what conditions, if any, do you consider such stealing to be responsible? Or acceptable?

pretty much as adam spelled it out, if you insist on terming it that way... it's good to see that you are one of the few really responsible voters out there, one who never (by his vote) condoned stealing

[PassedOut]

that's fine, but you're also not the one who called such voters (and votes) "completely irresponsible"

Did not recall anyone saying that, so I looked it up. The closest to it was you:

 

i assume this also would apply to those politicians that refused to let the bush tax cuts expire...

As I've mentioned in other threads, I can't be responsible for your assumptions.

 

Going back to what I actually said, is it your position that politicians who absolutely refuse to raise tax rates to pay for current spending are acting responsibly? When a candidate runs for office explicitly stating that all tax increases are "off the table" despite ballooning deficits, do you consider voting for such a candidate to be responsible behavior?

 

Judging by some of your posts, I suspect that you actually agree with me. You just wouldn't phrase it the way I do.

 

In the same vein, if you don't consider sending a gigantic bill for current federal spending to future generations as "stealing" from them, what euphemism do you prefer? I acknowledge that I'm not steeped in political correctness.

[Foxx]

On this topic, I'd say that Stephen Colbert absolutely steamrolled Amy Kremer last night...........

 

.........except the poor lady's face looks like somebody already did.