United States of Entropy

[Pearl]

I still think the likelihood of default is almost nil.

If it comes to that, the GOP will massively lose the 2014 elections. Do you think the corporate donors will give to a party that tanked their investments? Let's get real here.

I think you have a point, and I agree with digitize.

However, this was all pre-planned months ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?_r=0

To many Americans, the shutdown came out of nowhere. But interviews with a wide array of conservatives show that the confrontation that precipitated the crisis was the outgrowth of a long-running effort to undo the law, the Affordable Care Act, since its passage in 2010 — waged by a galaxy of conservative groups with more money, organized tactics and interconnections than is commonly known.
With polls showing Americans deeply divided over the law, conservatives believe that the public is behind them. Although the law’s opponents say that shutting down the government was not their objective, the activists anticipated that a shutdown could occur — and worked with members of the Tea Party caucus in Congress who were excited about drawing a red line against a law they despise

Some of these conservatives may think they're doing what their constituents want

 

[anitram]

Some of these conservatives may think they're doing what their constituents want

Sure, that's probably likely given the way they hold town halls and don't allow dissent of any sort.

But even if they do believe it's what their constituents want (and not all of them can possibly believe that as they hail from much "bluer" districts), we all know that American democracy doesn't have a whole lot to do with what the constituents want. That ship sailed long ago, into the seas of lobbyists.

 

[nbcrusader]

our debt is due to a revenue problem, and we're all much better off than we were in the fall of 2008. the Obama team were able to avoid a 2nd Great Depression and enter into a slow but clear recovery. he's also extracted us from 2 expensive, bloody wars. he also saved Detroit and Wall Street and meaningful financial reform has been passed. we'll also start to see real, clear health care savings (what will be the real driver to debt in the future) in the states that are adopting the ACA starting October 10 (California and Minnesota already being early examples)

I really appreciated this response as I spent quite a bit of time looking into our recent history. Unfortunately, I found statements like this really capture the current state of our political process. Factually, it is misleading at best and otherwise flat out wrong. The problem is that Irvine isn’t making this up - you can find editorials in the blogosphere that repeat this stuff as fact. More like the ongoing “truthiness” of political speak. Or, if you prefer, keep repeating the lie and it becomes fact.

Let’s take one statement (I prepared extensive counter arguments on all points, but this is not the best forum for factual debate) – Obama “saved” Detroit. At last check, the City (once the 4th wealthiest city in the United States) filed for bankruptcy. After throwing away $3 Billion on the Cars for Clunkers plan (which resulted in higher used car prices, ended up being more harmful to the environment and cost taxpayers $24,000 per car). This was followed by the $80 Billion bail-out of GM and Chrysler. The administration’s definition of success was actually a $5 Billion loss to taxpayers. I guess that is why Obama sent another $320 Million is sent to prop up Detroit.

Money still goes to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq (and 75% of US casualties in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama’s leadership), so the concept of “extracted” is a bit strained.

And of course, we have the things could have been worse argument – a logical fallacy clearly demonstrated by the Simpson’s bear patrol episode (it was targeting the Patriot Act at the time, now the “Second Depression” is the new bear).

I guess each side will stick to narratives and the concept of facts will get reduced to statistics and infographics.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is a breakdown of democracy, plain and simple. Of course all sides have played politics and used the process to their advantage, but have we ever had a minority hold the government hostage to change a law that is already on the books? Debt ceiling talks have always been about budgets, never about changing history.

Actually, what is happening with the budget/debt ceiling is democracy in action. The only reason a debt ceiling continues to exist is to maintain a balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. The Democrats could have eliminated the concept entirely when they held a majority during Obama’s first term. But they have and will want to use it as a tool when a Republican president is in office (I’m sure you all remember Obama’s “raising the debt ceiling is a failure of leadership” statement during the Bush years).

The government shut-down is a function of democracy. And while that means only 17% of the government actually is shut down, the impact has been negligible (i.e., war memorials on the Mall closed, scenic vistas of Mt. Rushmore are blocked, people kicked out of homes they own and other childish moves by the Administration). What the government shut-down tells me is that we have a lot of overhead that could be trimmed back.

 

[anitram]

Factually, it is misleading at best and otherwise flat out wrong.

I note that you didn't comment at all on the "revenue problem".

 

[BVS]

Actually, what is happening with the budget/debt ceiling is democracy in action. The only reason a debt ceiling continues to exist is to maintain a balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of government.

You are right, the concept is there to maintain balance of power. It's not there for a last ditch effort to reverse laws that you don't like.

Once again I'll ask this question; would you defend it as democracy were this debt ceiling being hijacked to end a war started by a Republican, push gun control agendas, or reverse abortion laws put into place?

 

[Irvine511]

I guess each side will stick to narratives and the concept of facts will get reduced to statistics and infographics.

as you've done so beautifully here.

i don't fault you for it -- i just wish you'd admit that you're every bit the partisan and ideologue as anyone else out there.

the bear patrol in your post is "things would have been better if only ...," which is rather beautiful in it's pot/kettle symmetry, and you're deliberate avoidance of the actual facts as well as topics, as anitram pointed out, is every bit out of the playbook you say you're trying to avoid.

to take one example:

"Detroit" is shorthand for the auto industry. we can agree that the city itself is a mess, but the American auto industry is, indeed, saved.

regard:

Without a doubt, the American auto industry emerged smaller and more competitive.

In the words of the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel that assessed the impact of the government's efforts: "The industry’s improved efficiency has allowed automakers to become more flexible and better able to meet changing consumer demands, while still remaining profitable."

Barack Obama, however, cannot claim full credit for this outcome. According to several experts, he needs to share it with his predecessor, President George W. Bush. Dr. James Rubenstein at Miami University co-wrote a post-bankruptcy assessment for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Rubenstein said no one should overlook the importance of Bush’s decision to use $17.6 billion in TARP money in December 2008 to keep General Motors and Chrysler afloat.

"The Bush Administration provided short-term bridge loans," Rubenstein said. "That allowed the Obama Administration to take a couple of months to assess the situation."

Aaron Bragman, the lead American automotive analyst for the financial forecasting group IHS Automotive, echoed the point. "The Bush administration is the one that actually acted to save them from an uncontrolled bankruptcy and shutdown," Bragman said. "The Obama administration's role was to fix them."

PolitiFact | Did President Obama save the auto industry?

the Afghanistan example is just awful. it ignores the ending of the costly, bloody, unnecessary Iraq War, and also ignores the context and history of the Afghanistan War as well. it cherry picks one rubric -- casualties after 2008 -- in a way that, for example, people like INDY take the job losses of the first half of 2009 and use it to distort the entirety of his economic record. as if he's responsible for the Great Recession. the Afghanistan conflict has gone through different phases and required different military efforts as it has changed and grown over the past 12 years.

it's breathtaking, but it's the kind of reality denial we get regularly from the GOP, so i'd expect nothing less from someone fighting in their corner and refers to Daily Caller articles.

it's all fine. we know what you're doing. the forum is more interesting with conservatives posting regularly. for all the shit INDY gets, at least he makes things more interesting and gets people posting and i get the sense a lot of it is about getting a rise out of people. it's the same thing in a post like this -- i just wish the sanctimony could be toned down a notch.

 

[anitram]

Back to the conveniently ignored revenue...

It is worth noting that while the debt keeps rising, the deficit (as a proportion of GDP) has decreased dramatically this year. And for the most part it was due to increased revenue due to the lapsed Bush tax cuts. Sequestration made a much smaller dent than revenue increases.

It is also worth nothing that economists agree that when a country is emerging from a recession and performing below its potential output (has relatively high unemployment, etc), the optimal recourse is to raise taxes, not make spending cuts. Spending cuts are indicated when an economy is at its peak output.

 

[nbcrusader]

it's all fine. we know what you're doing. the forum is more interesting with conservatives posting regularly. for all the shit INDY gets, at least he makes things more interesting and gets people posting and i get the sense a lot of it is about getting a rise out of people. it's the same thing in a post like this -- i just wish the sanctimony could be toned down a notch.

I am usually not disappointed by your posts. Always quick to respond, quoting from a seemingly endless supply of supporting partisan editorials, redefining the parameters of the discussion to mask errors and ridiculing sources you deem unworthy.


I've did the persistent daily participation thing years ago. If the time I allocate to this forum isn't sufficient for you, and you don't like you statements questioned, please feel free to block my posts.

But before you start the name calling, take a moment to review your body of work on this site in light of your comments and think about the term "sanctimonious".

 

[nbcrusader]

Back to the conveniently ignored revenue...

It is worth noting that while the debt keeps rising, the deficit (as a proportion of GDP) has decreased dramatically this year. And for the most part it was due to increased revenue due to the lapsed Bush tax cuts. Sequestration made a much smaller dent than revenue increases.

It is also worth nothing that economists agree that when a country is emerging from a recession and performing below its potential output (has relatively high unemployment, etc), the optimal recourse is to raise taxes, not make spending cuts. Spending cuts are indicated when an economy is at its peak output.

The statement “it’s a revenue problem” is simplistic and misleading.

First, it quietly suggests that spending is not a problem, government just isn’t getting the money it needs. Thus, we are told to ignore the ever growing problem in this country (and if you think this isn’t a problem, just look at government pension obligations to start).

Second, there are two parts to government revenue: taxable income and tax rate. You can address taxable income two ways – increase the amount of income generated in the country or add to the pools of money that can be taxed.

Since no country has ever taxed itself to prosperity, the focus should be on increasing incomes.

Politicians, however, find it easier to increase tax rates or add to the pools of money that can be taxed, with the emotionally pleasing mantra of others “paying their fair share.”

The idea that "economist agree" is simply not true, as like politics, there is persistent divergence in viewpoints on how the economy truly works. Also, using correlative evidence as causal evidence is somewhat misleading.

People forget that the Bush tax cuts were enacted as the US slid into recession after the Dot Com bubble burst. Perhaps they worked too well, as the economy overheated yet again (largely fueled by overwhelming demand in the residential real estate market), leading to another recession. The biggest fault I found with the Bush administration was the lack of fiscal discipline and the failure to restrain spending.

 

[anitram]

The statement “it’s a revenue problem” is simplistic and misleading.

Of course it is.

Just like "it's a debt problem" is.

The answer is a combination of the two, or preferred reliance on one over the other at different times in an economic cycle.

That is not what I am hearing from the politicians.

 

[nathan1977]

It is worth noting that while the debt keeps rising, the deficit (as a proportion of GDP) has decreased dramatically this year. And for the most part it was due to increased revenue due to the lapsed Bush tax cuts. Sequestration made a much smaller dent than revenue increases.

I've explored some of these "Obama dropped the deficit by 50% this year" claims, and they seem somewhat dubious. There are other people more well versed on the economy than I, but didn't deficits drop this year primarily because they had risen so dramatically over the past three years, due to ongoing costs from the wars, the bailout, and the recession? It would have been hard for the deficits to go up, apart from another war or another bailout.

From what I've seen:
Bush posted a $1.4T deficit in his last budget, due to the bailout, the two wars, and the economic struggles. However, Bush's deficits from 2008 and 2007 respectively were $458B and $161B.

That number has declined to $744B in 2014 under Obama, but it's still higher than Bush's deficits. (Of course, we're not going to see those numbers anytime soon.) And the impact of the ACA on the economy is a rather large question mark.

In the meantime, revenue from the expired Bush tax cuts was -- what -- somewhere between $50B-$80B, according to the IRS? Which dropped our deficit from 1.1T to -- what -- $1.05T? That's not terribly significant revenue (which seems obscene to me, but there you go).

To these eyes, this seems less like "we're controlling our spending and shrinking the deficit" and more like "we're running out of stuff to spend money we don't have on."

 

[Irvine511]

I am usually not disappointed by your posts. Always quick to respond, quoting from a seemingly endless supply of supporting partisan editorials, redefining the parameters of the discussion to mask errors and ridiculing sources you deem unworthy. I've did the persistent daily participation thing years ago. If the time I allocate to this forum isn't sufficient for you, and you don't like you statements questioned, please feel free to block my posts. But before you start the name calling, take a moment to review your body of work on this site in light of your comments and think about the term "sanctimonious".

I'm not sure if this is a deliberate misunderstanding or not, but I'm encouraging you to post more. I like my posts challenged. I like to be challenged to respond quickly and do research, and I always cite my (usually mainstream news) sources and quote others (usually due to time). Post as much or as little as you want. It's more fun when more people post. I'm sure it can't be easy when 90% of the people who post regularly don't agree with you. And if you really do go back and look at my body of work, you'll see that I regularly come to the defense if people who I feel are being piled upon, even if I disagree with them.

Just be honest. And self-aware -- everything you've just outlined as features of my posts (and my long, long history) you do to a T, from calling me an Alinsky-ite (Tea Party playbook) to your endless stream of partisan editorials (Daily Caller, the quickly googled Regenerus study).

No name calling here. The sanctimony comes not from your faith in the superior quality of the ideas presented but in the presentation of yourself as somehow above partisanship and ideology and an honest broker.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm not sure if this is a deliberate misunderstanding or not, but I'm encouraging you to post more. I like my posts challenged. I like to be challenged to respond quickly and do research, and I always cite my (usually mainstream news) sources and quote others (usually due to time). Post as much or as little as you want. It's more fun when more people post. I'm sure it can't be easy when 90% of the people who post regularly don't agree with you. And if you really do go back and look at my body of work, you'll see that I regularly come to the defense if people who I feel are being piled upon, even if I disagree with them.

Just be honest. And self-aware -- everything you've just outlined as features of my posts (and my long, long history) you do to a T, from calling me an Alinsky-ite (Tea Party playbook) to your endless stream of partisan editorials (Daily Caller, the quickly googled Regenerus study).

No name calling here. The sanctimony comes not from your faith in the superior quality of the ideas presented but in the presentation of yourself as somehow above partisanship and ideology and an honest broker.

Fair enough. If anything, one of the best parts of my participation on Interference is that you've gotten me to think at a deeper level on a wide variety of topics.

While I'd prefer to debate in person, limited and brief trips to the East Coast would prevent such opportunities. Till then, I look forward to exchanges here.

 

[Irvine511]

I'll do my best.

 

[nathan1977]

If anything, one of the best parts of my participation on Interference is that you've gotten me to think at a deeper level on a wide variety of topics.

I echo this sentiment. FYM drives me nuts, but it always challenges my thinking.

 

[Irvine511]

Fair enough. If anything, one of the best parts of my participation on Interference is that you've gotten me to think at a deeper level on a wide variety of topics. While I'd prefer to debate in person, limited and brief trips to the East Coast would prevent such opportunities. Till then, I look forward to exchanges here.

And I appreciate when, as you just did with anitram and taxes, you push further into a topic and construct an interesting point of view.

 

[Irvine511]

I echo this sentiment. FYM drives me nuts, but it always challenges my thinking.

And I'd add, for me, it forces me to really think about things. One might only have 5 minutes to construct an argument, but at least the wheels are turning and you've forced yourself to learn something if only to defend a point.

 

[nbcrusader]

Once again I'll ask this question; would you defend it as democracy were this debt ceiling being hijacked to end a war started by a Republican, push gun control agendas, or reverse abortion laws put into place?

Yes. I'd admonish the GOP for getting suckered into a budget battle over unrelated issues.

Can we really be surprised by the continued battle over the ACA? It is essentially the antithesis of bipartisanship. And like so many other laws, whether through executive, legislative or judicial action, change will always be sought.

 

[U2DMfan]

The statement “it’s a revenue problem” is simplistic and misleading.

Sorry for the length. I'm an Independent but I used to describe myself as fiscally conservative. But all I ever really meant by that was I believe in a balanced budget. Dealing w/economics we can't take numbers in a vacuum but we can take numbers and look at a reasonable approach to governance.

What we know is that the focus on "increasing incomes" and effective 'growth by tax cut' will bring in about 18% of GDP (Federal revenues) maximum. Since FY1983 and the Reagan tax cuts, we hit 18% a whole three times with a GOP President. That's 17 years of Reagan, HWBush and WBush, 14 of which were below 18%. But that is the proven 'ceiling' here for supply-side and naturally the number GOP politicians always use - '18%'.

While EVERY year from 1995-2001 brought above 18%. Only hitting 20% once in 2000. You have to go back to 1952 to find it hitting 20% again. And during those balanced budgets (surplus), it was 19%. This argument is relative to tax cuts paying for themselves and there were no tax cuts in the 90's, so while the GOP ran congress under Clinton, that is irrelevant to the point.

We simply cannot HOPE to balance the budget at 18%. And probably not even at 19%. 20% might be what is needed. But 18% is objectively too low. Heading further into the 21st century, everyone is living longer, entitlements are not going to disappear because everyone wants them. Republicans want them because they NEVER have and NEVER will cut them. The one MILD adjustment in the 90's was to welfare. But when it's all GOP (see: 8 years of Dubya, they do nothing). Why? Because they want to stay in office too. And a group of fringe "Tea Party" folk that don't understand what they're railing against (in certain situations) aren't going to change any of that.

It's simply not enough revenue to fund the government EVERYBODY wants. And not only the government everybody wants, the government that (relatively speaking) is not going away. Those federal pensions are pesky but they aren't evaporating any time soon. And the defense budget has been trimmed about as far as it will be trimmed.

It might be too simplistic to say that it's a revenue problem, because that might imply spending isn't its own issue. But it is MUCH more of a revenue problem than a spending problem. That is virtually inarguable. The math is the math. Regardless of how GOP politicians sell this farce to the public.

The last time we had a balanced budget we had spending reforms + higher taxes and a BOOMING economy. Right now we're at about 16% which is way way too low. It hasn't been that low since 1976. But 2010 dipped below 15% and we're projected to be back at 18% by 2015. So we're going in the right direction. After all 18% is the vaunted GOP number. Federal spending is currently too high at 22% of GDP. Here are some other years where fed spending was 22% of GDP - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991.

And everyone can remember all those conservatives talking about the Bush admin spending too much, to show how balanced they were and that is wasn't about pure politics? Well, spending never topped 20% under W. It was Saint Reagan and Daddy that spent like a madman. Of course, they also had a Democratic-controlled congress. But once again, once in control of both houses, they didn't cut anything in the way of so-called entitlements. All that is - is a political tactic. To scare people into voting against Democrats.

But yes, 22% is high but austerity shrinks growth. And the one thing economists genuinely all do agree with is - we need growth. Growth alone will shrink spending relative to GDP.

And even the one BIG argument the GOP used to make about job creation (all essentially in a two-year window under Reagan) fell apart when W Bush put up a goose egg in 8 years. Effectively no jobs created.

Republican economics via Supply Side has thoroughly failed. This isn't an endorsement of the alternative but only to say, it's clearly a better option. And as long as that is the case and as long as someone like Bill Clinton is alive that can make this "math" argument much better than I can, (although maybe just as long winded!) the Reps will not take back the WH.

 

[AEON]

Sorry for the length. I'm an Independent but I used to describe myself as fiscally conservative. But all I ever really meant by that was I believe in a balanced budget. Dealing w/economics we can't take numbers in a vacuum but we can take numbers and look at a reasonable approach to governance.

What we know is that the focus on "increasing incomes" and effective 'growth by tax cut' will bring in about 18% of GDP (Federal revenues) maximum. Since FY1983 and the Reagan tax cuts, we hit 18% a whole three times with a GOP President. That's 17 years of Reagan, HWBush and WBush, 14 of which were below 18%. But that is the proven 'ceiling' here for supply-side and naturally the number GOP politicians always use - '18%'.

While EVERY year from 1995-2001 brought above 18%. Only hitting 20% once in 2000. You have to go back to 1952 to find it hitting 20% again. And during those balanced budgets (surplus), it was 19%. This argument is relative to tax cuts paying for themselves and there were no tax cuts in the 90's, so while the GOP ran congress under Clinton, that is irrelevant to the point.

We simply cannot HOPE to balance the budget at 18%. And probably not even at 19%. 20% might be what is needed. But 18% is objectively too low. Heading further into the 21st century, everyone is living longer, entitlements are not going to disappear because everyone wants them. Republicans want them because they NEVER have and NEVER will cut them. The one MILD adjustment in the 90's was to welfare. But when it's all GOP (see: 8 years of Dubya, they do nothing). Why? Because they want to stay in office too. And a group of fringe "Tea Party" folk that don't understand what they're railing against (in certain situations) aren't going to change any of that.

It's simply not enough revenue to fund the government EVERYBODY wants. And not only the government everybody wants, the government that (relatively speaking) is not going away. Those federal pensions are pesky but they aren't evaporating any time soon. And the defense budget has been trimmed about as far as it will be trimmed.

It might be too simplistic to say that it's a revenue problem, because that might imply spending isn't its own issue. But it is MUCH more of a revenue problem than a spending problem. That is virtually inarguable. The math is the math. Regardless of how GOP politicians sell this farce to the public.

The last time we had a balanced budget we had spending reforms + higher taxes and a BOOMING economy. Right now we're at about 16% which is way way too low. It hasn't been that low since 1976. But 2010 dipped below 15% and we're projected to be back at 18% by 2015. So we're going in the right direction. After all 18% is the vaunted GOP number. Federal spending is currently too high at 22% of GDP. Here are some other years where fed spending was 22% of GDP - 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1991.

And everyone can remember all those conservatives talking about the Bush admin spending too much, to show how balanced they were and that is wasn't about pure politics? Well, spending never topped 20% under W. It was Saint Reagan and Daddy that spent like a madman. Of course, they also had a Democratic-controlled congress. But once again, once in control of both houses, they didn't cut anything in the way of so-called entitlements. All that is - is a political tactic. To scare people into voting against Democrats.

But yes, 22% is high but austerity shrinks growth. And the one thing economists genuinely all do agree with is - we need growth. Growth alone will shrink spending relative to GDP.

And even the one BIG argument the GOP used to make about job creation (all essentially in a two-year window under Reagan) fell apart when W Bush put up a goose egg in 8 years. Effectively no jobs created.

Republican economics via Supply Side has thoroughly failed. This isn't an endorsement of the alternative but only to say, it's clearly a better option. And as long as that is the case and as long as someone like Bill Clinton is alive that can make this "math" argument much better than I can, (although maybe just as long winded!) the Reps will not take back the WH.

Interesting post. If this is true - then what in the heck is Obama doing?

 

[Pearl]

I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.

I wonder if both sides are ready for any kind of lawsuits:

This is the exact situation that CDC and other about-to-be-furloughed federal personnel warned about last week. As a reminder, a CDC staffer told me at the time:

I know that we will not be conducting multi-state outbreak investigations. States may continue to find outbreaks, but we won’t be doing the cross-state consultation and laboratory work to link outbreaks that might cross state borders.
​

That means that the lab work and molecular detection that can link far-apart cases and define the size and seriousness of outbreaks are not happening. At the CDC, which operates the national foodborne-detection services FoodNet and PulseNet, scientists couldn’t work on this if they wanted to; they have been locked out of their offices, lab and emails. (At a conference I attended last week, 10 percent of the speakers did not show up because they were CDC personnel and risked being fired if they traveled even voluntarily.)

There's a Major Foodborne Illness Outbreak and the Government's Shut Down - Wired Science

 

[Irvine511]

I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.

what should he compromise on?

 

[anitram]

I agree that Obama should be willing to compromise here too.

Where?

 

[Pearl]

I don't know. I'm just babbling now, sorry. I'm just pissed with what's going on and I want it to end. I'm not too optimistic that the GOP will not allow the default to happen. They may prevent that, and have good reasons to, but I'm not too hopeful.

 

[AEON]

what should he compromise on?

I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us:

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%

 

[anitram]

I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us:

95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%

AEON, I find this as repulsive as you do, but what do you suggest the President does?

He doesn't control private sector salaries.

So what do you suggest? Raising taxes on the 1% to increase revenue? Increase regulations on corporations, thereby reducing corporate profits?

 

[U2DMfan]

Interesting post. If this is true - then what in the heck is Obama doing?

You can double check any of those numbers. They are all accurate and I believe they are presented in a fair context.

Obama is doing about all he can. But especially given the nature of the House opposition. I know that's not a sufficient answer for people that are predisposed to believing he's not doing something he should.

I think the Obama plan is to let growth slowly build. Because cutting too much shrinks growth. Proven by recent austerity elsewhere in the world. But each time it starts looking better, something like a government shutdown happens and causes the market to panic and it fucks everything up.

Debt to GDP ratio is the most damning statistic against Obama. But that is in the wake of the Great Recession and Greedy Bankers and Credit Default Swaps, etc. So everything looks much worse than it otherwise would.

Government Debt Chart: United States 1950-2018 - Federal State Local Data

You can also use that link to double check the federal spending/revenue numbers relative to GDP.

 

[Irvine511]

I think he can stop being the president of the 1 percent and actually start working for the rest of us: 95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%

I'm talking about the present situation in regards to the extortion over the ACA.

 

[AEON]

I'm talking about the present situation in regards to the extortion over the ACA.

From what 'm reading - default should be avoided at all costs. I think the president and congress should do whatever it takes to make certain this doesn't happen.

After this showdown is over, then we need make it illegal for this to ever happen again. But we need to get through this mess first.