Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9983)	8/1/2011 7:41:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

There's a difference between not smooth and jumping off a cliff. Even not extending the debt limit "on time" (in quotes since there is a lot of flexibility about the time) isn't quite jumping off the cliff, coming to a deal (which seems to have happened, but we'll see if the House actually passes it) after a lot of tense negotiations is more like hitting some potholes, or taking a back country dirt road, rather than the highway. I suppose not passing an increase "on time" would be like choosing to rub against a tree before flying at speed in to a snowbank, because you think your momentum is going to cause you to ski over a cliff. But maybe I'm getting a bit too in to analogies right now... In a perfect world, or even just a better world (that still had the problem of government overspending, and the momentum towards and promises for even more spending), I wouldn't like this sort of brinkmanship. But without it, nothing was happening. With it not a lot was actually gained, but perhaps this can be a start. Real change is going to have to wait until at least the year after the next elections, but the focus that has been drawn to the deficit, and to the idea of controlling spending, is welcome. The counterargument might be to wait until after the next elections until doing something, then there might be both less drama and more effect. But if that's done you have all the increases comming through 2013, also politically you cause the tea partiers and others to think the GOP hasn't changed and is the same old "me too" party when it comes to government spending increases. In order to win at the polls and accomplish something bigger later on you either need to deliver something, or perhaps lose so big for such a long time, that the other side's faults become obvious and you can take power again after they have wrecked everything. But then you have to accept a lot of damage in the meantime. And its not just a matter of showing some effectiveness to get votes. If the GOP punted on this, it might not just be a matter of impressions, it could be a sign that they are losing the will to do anything. Those that refuse to vote for the current deal, and their supporters, and the tea party movement in general, are not only the sole reason there is any movement to spending restraint now, they are also the main force keeping the GOP leadership and the "moderates" having any focus on reigning in government. Also, dropping all ideological and even practical concerns about government spending and trying to present a "neutral" view for the moment, the other side is just as much to blame. If they accepted the idea of some degree of spending restraint, without any direct imposition of new or increased taxes (leaving that to a future debate like this bill does), there could have been an agreement awhile ago. If we abandon the use of using the debt ceiling to get concessions on spending, then it doesn't serve any purpose (and for a long time it didn't), might as well just remove the ceiling completely if its not going to be used productively and threatening not to raise it is considered out of bounds.