So we hit the debt limit...

[Neil]

Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?

[alfred russel]

Do you see the danger of punting 10% of GDP deficits and unfunded entitlements down the road year after year after year?

Absolutely. But the way to address that is through the normal budget process. Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.

The problem isn't just whether there is a default--if this is seen as a sign of future long term uncertainty in debt payments, that is going to have a huge negative impact on our budget. With a debt of around $10 trillion (depending on how you want to measure it) fast going to $20 trillion and above, you are talking about an extra $100 - $200 billion a year in interest cost with a 1% interest rate rise. That is financing the Iraq War during the surge type of money, for nothing.

[Admiral Yi]

Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.

That sounds about right.  Radioactive waste that grows stronger all the time.

[Admiral Yi]

Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.

Puh-lease.  If the GOP were to try the same with a shutdown that went a month, three months, six months, we'd be having the exact same conversation we are now. 

Well, except the part of the conversation where you say the Republicans can completely have their way.

[Habbaku]

Does anyone see the danger of not raising taxes?

I see the danger of not seriously dealing with the deficit and the national debt.  I'm open to tax increases, but not that alone.

[alfred russel]

Where as we've discussed the Republicans can completely have their way if they are willing to stick to their guns as any spending requires their sign off.

Puh-lease.  If the GOP were to try the same with a shutdown that went a month, three months, six months, we'd be having the exact same conversation we are now. 

Well, except the part of the conversation where you say the Republicans can completely have their way.

It would depend on how the negotiations were going, but I'd probably conclude that they were assholes. But not the insane lunatics they appear to be now.

The thing is they probably don't have some master scheme behind all of this, relative to whether or not a government shutdown threat or a debt ceiling threat would be more effective during negotiation. We are probably giving them too much credit. What I really think this is about is the no-nothing portion of their base doesn't understand the debt ceiling and is against increasing it, and the House leadership is under a lot of pressure to appear hardcore on spending issues. So they take this stupid stance, and hope Obama tosses them a few bones to bail them out of the nonsense.

[alfred russel]

If I wanted to to be a bit more cynical, I'd say they picked this battle rather than the normal shutdown route because they could actually balance the budget if they wanted in a shutdown (and hung together), but they know the public at large has no appetite for that. This way they can hope Obama negotiates a deal that is palatable to the general public, but they still can seem hardcore to the tea party idiots.

[Razgovory]

Seems similar to the danger of radioactive waste compared to the danger of someone threatening to set off a nuclear bomb.

That sounds about right.  Radioactive waste that grows stronger all the time.

Indeed.  The correct response to the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain is to threaten to set off a nuclear weapon in New York.

[Razgovory]

I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

[Neil]

I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

Experience tells me:  No.

[grumbler]

You are incorrect.

Argument by assertion.

[grumbler]

I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

Experience tells me:  No.

Experience tells us that there would be promises of budget-balancing right after the conclusion of a splendid little war in the president's first term that would have the troops home by Christmas.

[MadImmortalMan]

Question for Yi:  Do you see both sides as morally equivalent in this situation?  GOP members threatening to tank the economy unless they get their way and the President's refusal to give in to those demands.  Are these things equal in your mind, or is one worse then the other?

I sincerely hope you aren't looking for morality in politics. 

[Admiral Yi]

I wonder, would the GOP be so keen on balancing the budget if they had the presidency and control of both houses of Congress.

Assuming you're right, so what?  Now we can ignore the deficit?

[Admiral Yi]

Argument by assertion.

No, just an assertion.