• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Americans (in general) Suffer from Normalcy Bias?

A credit downgrade will not result from out debt; it will result from the right wings unwillingness to pay the debts they voted to accumulate.

They want to burn down the house so they can say "See? We told you that you shouldn't have built your house there!"
Fortunately, we have the money to pay the interest on our debts right now, even if a vote on the debt ceiling doesn't happen for some months yet. So it doesn't appear the threat you portray is a reality at all. 83% of the government is functioning, and debt service can be paid. For right now, we're actually being held hostage to a WH which has manufactured another fake crisis in order to avoid dealing with the real one looming on the horizon.
 
Fortunately, we have the money to pay the interest on our debts right now, even if a vote on the debt ceiling doesn't happen for some months yet. So it doesn't appear the threat you portray is a reality at all. 83% of the government is functioning, and debt service can be paid. For right now, we're actually being held hostage to a WH which has manufactured another fake crisis in order to avoid dealing with the real one looming on the horizon.

Except for that last sentence, I tend to agree because the right wing is issuing empty threats.
 
A credit downgrade might change your mind, as will an increase in interest - and it's only a matter of time before interest rates increase significantly. It only works until it doesn't. I do agree this is not a huge crisis at present in spite of the rhetoric, but it could easily become one if we don't get our spending and fiscal house in order soon. Right now there are no signs that we will.
Thing is, the interest on the debt isn't that huge that we can't pay it - at least at current interest rates. We have enough revenues coming to pay for our debt - and we will pay for our debt; I seriously doubt we'll default. I don't even see that in the cards, despite the Democrat's partisan screaming and hollering and puerile attempts to pin this on Republicans only.

But we're spending over 800 billion right now more than we're taking in, which forces us to continue to borrow money to pay for such spending excesses. As of today, the interest on our debt is sitting at $415,688,781,248.40. That's what we're spending for the privilege of borrowing. It buys nothing, helps nobody, hinders productivity...

Imagine what we could do with that $415 billion dollars instead of just throwing it away like we're doing now?

Imagine then what would happen with that $415 billion dollars if the interest rate were to double right now, if it were to increase to a normal, reasonable rate of return for those who've lent us all that money? The interest on our debt would double to $830,000,000,000. The only reason it hasn't is because the Fed dare not - something the Democrats know full well.
 
Imagine what we could do with that $415 billion dollars instead of just throwing it away like we're doing now?

You're not looking at the big picture

Imagine where we'd be if we hadn't invested the $17 trillion dollars?

We'd be in a far worse position
 
You're not looking at the big picture

Imagine where we'd be if we hadn't invested the $17 trillion dollars?

We'd be in a far worse position
Only you don't know that. Moreover, not every expenditure is an "investment." In fact, very little of our federal budget can be considered an "investment," it's just spending with no possibility of return.

In fact, if we HAD actually "invested" $17 trillion dollars, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now.
 
You're not looking at the big picture

Imagine where we'd be if we hadn't invested the $17 trillion dollars?

We'd be in a far worse position

Isn't that normalcy bias though?

Extrapolate the injection of liquidity into an economy ad infinitum.... economic collapse is the only outcome.

You can argue that the Fed is walking a tight rope and will taper; but I HIGHLY doubt it, given the market collapse trend from August's taper rumor.
 
Except for that last sentence, I tend to agree because the right wing is issuing empty threats.
Actually, the House could do quite a bit to stymie the president's agenda and the president might want to consider that without some accommodation, life could become pretty difficult for him. It all depends on who sees what as a political advantage leading up to 2014. Obama wants a clean CR, and as he continues to calculate political fortunes, the chances he will get one are pretty much gone. I think he's gone to that particular "crisis well" one too many times. You know how crying wolf repeatedly works out in the end...
 
Only you don't know that.

Actually, I do. Without that money, we wouldn't have TARP to bail us out of the last fiasco

Moreover, not every expenditure is an "investment."

True. Some of it went to vanity projects like the invasion of Iraq

In fact, very little of our federal budget can be considered an "investment," it's just spending with no possibility of return.

In fact, if we HAD actually "invested" $17 trillion dollars, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in right now.

IMO, most of our budget could be considered an investment.
 
Actually, I do. Without that money, we wouldn't have TARP to bail us out of the last fiasco



True. Some of it went to vanity projects like the invasion of Iraq



IMO, most of our budget could be considered an investment.

We're going to need 1000 X TARP soon....

Nothing has changed since '00 (mid 90s really)

Derivatives are estimated at 1 quadrillion USD now!

TARP and everything after has been NOTHING but the delay of total USD collapse.

We're riding on our universities and brain trust from the 40s-90s.

QE infinity has insured that it will be inflationary rather than deflationary, long term.

When the rest of the world wakes up from their stupor, USD hegemony will be gone (or WW3 will be here).
 
Last edited:
Actually, the House could do quite a bit to stymie the president's agenda and the president might want to consider that without some accommodation, life could become pretty difficult for him. It all depends on who sees what as a political advantage leading up to 2014. Obama wants a clean CR, and as he continues to calculate political fortunes, the chances he will get one are pretty much gone. I think he's gone to that particular "crisis well" one too many times. You know how crying wolf repeatedly works out in the end...

The right wing has shown that with or without accommodation, they are going to do everything they can do "stymie" the president.

IOW, accommodation gets the president nothing. The House may want to consider that

And as far as crying wolf goes, I found your comments highly ironic given the way this thread is based on the notion that we face an unavoidable disaster.
 
Thing is, the interest on the debt isn't that huge that we can't pay it - at least at current interest rates. We have enough revenues coming to pay for our debt - and we will pay for our debt; I seriously doubt we'll default. I don't even see that in the cards, despite the Democrat's partisan screaming and hollering and puerile attempts to pin this on Republicans only.

But we're spending over 800 billion right now more than we're taking in, which forces us to continue to borrow money to pay for such spending excesses. As of today, the interest on our debt is sitting at $415,688,781,248.40. That's what we're spending for the privilege of borrowing. It buys nothing, helps nobody, hinders productivity...

Imagine what we could do with that $415 billion dollars instead of just throwing it away like we're doing now?

Imagine then what would happen with that $415 billion dollars if the interest rate were to double right now, if it were to increase to a normal, reasonable rate of return for those who've lent us all that money? The interest on our debt would double to $830,000,000,000. The only reason it hasn't is because the Fed dare not - something the Democrats know full well.
At some point the Fed has to turn off the pump and let interest rates rise. We all know this, and at least some of us appreciate the consequences. Whistling in the dark will not change the outcome unless you believe that somehow political fortunes will accrue in the interim in your favor. At that point it probably won't matter whether you're at the helm or in the galley - it's the same boat.
 
The right wing has shown that with or without accommodation, they are going to do everything they can do "stymie" the president.

IOW, accommodation gets the president nothing. The House may want to consider that

And as far as crying wolf goes, I found your comments highly ironic given the way this thread is based on the notion that we face an unavoidable disaster.
It's odd then, that I haven't seen the president or the Senate accomodate the right on much of anything at all. If you believe, as the president does, that a clean CR is all that is required in order for things to be right in our financial affairs, then yes, the president is crying wolf and offering nothing to address the problem that is looming other than platitudes for the dim and those who wish to feel secure without foundation.
 
At some point the Fed has to turn off the pump and let interest rates rise. We all know this, and at least some of us appreciate the consequences. Whistling in the dark will not change the outcome unless you believe that somehow political fortunes will accrue in the interim in your favor. At that point it probably won't matter whether you're at the helm or in the galley - it's the same boat.

Exactly.

They cannot turn off the pump.

They can't keep the pump going.

The US economy is going to collapse for a certainty. (along with the global economy)

So really the question is: where will the war start?
 
It's odd then, that I haven't seen the president or the Senate accomodate the right on much of anything at all. If you believe, as the president does, that a clean CR is all that is required in order for things to be right in our financial affairs, then yes, the president is crying wolf and offering nothing to address the problem that is looming other than platitudes for the dim and those who wish to feel secure without foundation.

It doesn't matter what you've seen. The fact is that there has been many accomodations in the past and the republicans ignored them, just as you are doing now.
 
It doesn't matter what you've seen. The fact is that there has been many accomodations in the past and the republicans ignored them, just as you are doing now.

But who cares Sangha?

Do you really think Democrats are 'good' and Republicans are 'evil'?

In my opinion, that is falling for their trap! Now you're stuck arguing for the other side of the coin when the whole coin is against us.

Get us debating over nonsense like gay marriage/abortion and start all the war / economic shenanigans that they want.

Obama and Bush are greedy bloodthirsty psychos with a desire for power. I see no reason to defend either of these obviously corrupt systems.

Divide and conquer ...
 
Last edited:
At some point the Fed has to turn off the pump and let interest rates rise. We all know this, and at least some of us appreciate the consequences. Whistling in the dark will not change the outcome unless you believe that somehow political fortunes will accrue in the interim in your favor. At that point it probably won't matter whether you're at the helm or in the galley - it's the same boat.
Ahyup. Excellent point.
 
And "house of cards" it definitely is.

I've posted this elsewhere - taken from data from the CBO and US Treaury:
View attachment 67154800

We simply cannot sustain such exponential increases in our spending. Something's gotta give... :(

If that chart isn't adjusted for inflation, it's exactly what we would expect it to look like, and not an issue at all.

I've seen some other charts, based upon the idea of population growth and inflation, which tend to indicate that we are actually spending too little. You can make a graph "prove" whatever you want it to prove, just by manipulating the baseline, or by cherry picking dates, or by not adjusting for things that obviously should be adjusted for.
 
Drama queens? I live with complete satisfaction that I will never, ever be required to pay my share of the national debt. I do have children, though, and it's highly likely that they will not only have to pay their share, but mine as well. That's not paranoia. It's simply reality heavily supported by even the government's own projections.

The nice thing about that is that we are becoming an ever more productive society, producing more and more goods per hour. So the amount of production that it may have taken you to pay "your share" of the national debt might have been 25,000 hours of labor, your kids may be able to produce that much production in 2500 hours, and they will likely pass on "their share" of the national debt to your grandchildren, who will be able to pay it with just 250 labor hours, passing on "their share" of the national debt to your great grandchildren who will be able to repay it with just 25 hours of labor, on and on...
 
A credit downgrade might change your mind, as will an increase in interest - and it's only a matter of time before interest rates increase significantly. It only works until it doesn't. I do agree this is not a huge crisis at present in spite of the rhetoric, but it could easily become one if we don't get our spending and fiscal house in order soon. Right now there are no signs that we will.

I honestly don't see that happening. Our guys in the treasury are way to smart for that, they know that not paying our bond obligations will destroy the country for years if not decades.

What they will do is simply stop paying government employees, and entitlements, and possibly venders, much like they have already done only on a more grand scale. That Oct 17th deadline realistically is more like the 20th or 21st due to the current "slimdown". If we go past the 20th or 21st, the treasury will continue to redeem bonds, and will actually still be allowed to issue more bonds, in the same amount as what they redeem.

Now seeing how the treasury is part of the executive branch, what gets paid or not paid will be in the hands of Obama, who will be sure to use this special power, almost a gift given to him by tea party radicals in the House, to cause as much harm to big supporters of the republican party as possible, while minimizing it's impact on democrat supports. We've already been seeing this, so it should be a surprise to no one.

I'd imagine that since older folks tend to vote republican, social security will be the first thing not to get paid. Now when voters get angry, they tend to vote for the other party, so democrats should gain voters in the older demographic. While obviously republicans will accuse Obama of purposely targeting our retire folk, Obama can point out that it is Republicans who actually suggested cutting back on medicare and social security (just this week), and make a pretty convincing argument that it was the republicans idea to withhold social security benefits.

The second thing to be targeted will be all other entitlements. by withholding all entitlement checks (and ebt cards), it will make it easier for Obama to justify withholding social security checks. The "taker" states tend to be republican states, thus again, this will harm republicans more than it will democrats.

I would imagine that we would see large closures of military bases - mostly in republican leaning states, like mine. I live in SC, we have Parris Island, which is the marine basic training site, and Ft. Jackson is adjacent to our capital city, and is a major army basic training site. Since undoubtably we will just stop taking new recruits (rather than to "fire" combat seasoned veterins), then we will have no need for Parris Island or Ft. Jackson to remain open. A major hit to the SC economy, and another major shift in our voter base from republican to democrat.

Otherwise, just basically any payments or contracts with federal government vender corporations which give larger contributions to republicans than democrats will be the next on the hit list. The CEO's of those companies are going to be furious, and they will complain to any politicians that they "own", and put so much pressure on these republican donation receivers that they will have to cave.

This is a now win situation for conservatives, and a must win situation for democrats. I believe that we are seeing the disintegration of the republican party before our eyes. Never thought it would go down like this, I have NEVER voted for a democrat in my life.
 
If that chart isn't adjusted for inflation, it's exactly what we would expect it to look like, and not an issue at all.
How so?

I've seen some other charts, based upon the idea of population growth and inflation, which tend to indicate that we are actually spending too little. You can make a graph "prove" whatever you want it to prove, just by manipulating the baseline, or by cherry picking dates, or by not adjusting for things that obviously should be adjusted for.
I was merely using the raw data from the Treasury and CBO, which I'd stated. I haven't manipulated anything, let alone to "prove" anything other than what the data is.

You'll have to explain where you're coming from and why to suggest that "we're actually spending too little."
 

the slope of the "spending" curve would be much less steep if it was adjusted for inflation.

I was merely using the raw data from the Treasury and CBO, which I'd stated. I haven't manipulated anything, let alone to "prove" anything other than what the data is.

You'll have to explain where you're coming from and why to suggest that "we're actually spending too little."

A while back, a poster in the economics forum on this site presented a chart, where spending was adjusted for inflation and per capital production (gdp/population), and it became quite apparent from that chart, that we are actually spending too little. I'm not going to take the time to find it, it would take me forever, but I believe the poster went by the name of "Cardinal Fang". He had worked as a researcher for the Fed for 30 years, and has a PhD in economics, so seeing how is creditials are much more impressive than mine, I have to believe that his chart was accurate, and it seemed reasonably adjusted. Why wouldn't you adjust for gdp/capital and inflation when it's obvious that both factors exist?
 
Other countries have faced economic collapse though bad fiscal policy... Argentina being a particular example where it got very bad. It's happened elsewhere too.


If it can happen to other countries, odds are it could hit us too... and our fiscal policy is definitely playing fast and loose with Monopoly money (fiat and debt).


Yes, normalcy bias is widely prevalent in America. We tend to think we cannot go down, we're special somehow... I hope we don't find out different but I fear we will.
 
How so?

I was merely using the raw data from the Treasury and CBO, which I'd stated. I haven't manipulated anything, let alone to "prove" anything other than what the data is.

You'll have to explain where you're coming from and why to suggest that "we're actually spending too little."

"How can so many people be so unconcerned about the staggering amount of debt with which our politicians continue to saddle us," is a question I was asked recently by a young taxpayer---to which I had no answer. I wish I did! I do know it's close to $17 trillion and climbing, and a slight increase in increase rates, which is predicted by many people, because our lenders are getting quite concerned about our inability to rein in spending, and will cost us billions more than we are currently paying, which I believe is in the $425 billion a year range. That money could be used to repair our aging infrastucture, among other things. :sigh:


I actually feel sorry for Jack Lew, Treasury Secretary, who has to make the decisions on who to pay and when.

Greetings, EdwinWillers. :2wave:
 
Exactly.

They cannot turn off the pump.

They can't keep the pump going.

The US economy is going to collapse for a certainty. (along with the global economy)

So really the question is: where will the war start?
I agree they're in a dilemma of sorts. I don't think a collapse is forthcoming, but it could get pretty ugly, and sooner than many might think if this or that happens. The good news is that we can change the course even a little and avoid serious consequences for a while. We'll see.
 
It doesn't matter what you've seen. The fact is that there has been many accomodations in the past and the republicans ignored them, just as you are doing now.
It matters to me. If there have been concessions and accommodations, they haven't amounted to much or we wouldn't be at this impasse. I have no doubt you have pet concessions you believe have been made. They haven't affected the outcome we currently face, and that's surely not completely the reason for the intractability of the right, alone. What I'm waiting for is the leader of the country to lead. Spreading fear of a default is not responsible leadership regardless of political stripe. A real leader would stand up, speak the truth, and announce that we will honor our obligations. Then he has claimed the high ground by virtue of the truth, and can invite negotiations based on that. Obama has chosen instead to come in as a hero after he has precipitated a self-proclaimed crisis in which he, and only he, is the solution. You have to admit, that's pretty child like.
 
Back
Top Bottom