Skip to main content

View Diary: Why The Debt Limit Fight Will Be A Political Face-Off With No Gimmicks Or Constitutional Crisis (208 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe I'm just not that optimistic anymore. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton
    we are not all that far away from achieving fiscal sustainability.
    We still have a huge deficit and even larger deferred obligations.  I'd love to believe it's as simple as reversing the W tax plans and we'd revert to Clinton surpluses.  But, it's not simple and the monies on the right are fighting mightily against increasing their share of the load.  Also, lurching from crisis to crisis makes for dramatic press reports and has been shown to be a great strategy for the (R), will they be willing to give that up too?  
    It sounds so easy 'regenerate another trillion in revenue', that's only 7% :-), more or less.  A clean debt limit bill might let us get to the crux, but the devil is still very much alive and well in the details.

    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

    by Memory Corrupted on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:41:50 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Read Krugman's article. He points out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund, elwior

      that with an additional $1T over ten years we are on a path to keep the debt at 70% of GDP for decades and why that is acceptable.

      Further, affiant sayeth not.

      by Gary Norton on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:55:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Acceptable in the sense of (0+ / 0-)

        Running debt at that level would be a small enough millstone that America could lumber on. But running an ongoing debt at 70% GDP level amounts to a perpetual bankers welfare program. in exchange for - nothing - we ship a trillion dollars to the bankers every year for forever.

        I think that by the term "acceptable" Mr Krugman means is that at the 70% level decision-making need not be done in panic mode. That the nation can take a long-term and pragmatic approach to lowering the overall debt.

        "Long-term in DC" I crack myself up.

      •  I don't know which article that is. He's (0+ / 0-)

        fairly prolific in documenting his opinions.  Doing some googling I found him saying:
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...
        and
        http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

        I know basic economic thinking is that debt exceeding 90% of GDP measurably slows growth, consequently a position of 70% would give a safety margin.  My post was an expression of doubt that the competing interests will truely come to a solution to the ills rather a continuation of politics as usual.  (I did mean 7%, as in 1T is appx 7% of 14T)
        Having said that, since the wealthy require growth for their own self interests, perhaps there's enough motivation for them to actually give some ground on the revenue side.

        The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking. A. A. Milne

        by Memory Corrupted on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 08:03:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (45)
  • Elections (37)
  • Environment (35)
  • Media (34)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site