So... What exactly is the point of a debt limit when the government is either incapable or unwilling to adhere to it? I mean seriously. It is treated as a pesky obstacle to be brushed aside rather than a hard limit on sending. As far as I cab tell it really only exists as a bargaining chip.

The debt ceiling is real. If reached, the United States defaults on its obligations, like you would default on a car loan if you failed to pay. There are real consequences, and they are a thousand times more drastic than the consequences of raising the debt ceiling (This won't always be true as the problem increases. But for now, it is.)

What is happening here is that Obama and the Democrats are attempting to balance the budget in the same bill that raises the debt ceiling, and the Republicans are saying "Nuh uh. No tax increases." The Democrats are willing to compromise on domestic spending cuts and the Republicans still refuse to compromise on raising taxes for people who make more than $250,000 per year to reasonable levels:



So essentially what will happen is that since failing to raise the debt ceiling means armageddon, the bill will have to be gutted so that only the raising of the debt ceiling is included. This means that we won't get the balanced budget that we need.

Yes, it's arm-twisting to glue those two bills together. But look at it this way:
If this amount of blackmail is not sufficient to get Republicans to compromise as much as the Democrats are willing to compromise in order to resolve the deficit, then nothing will. The stakes: global economic collapse next month—and yet they are willing to risk it.

But let's not fool ourselves—they've been willing to risk it ever since they ensured the ease with which the upper class can siphon wealth from everyone and everything else.

Yeah, I'm aware the debt ceiling is a real concept. But it is fluid to the point of ridiculousness. The only time anyone republican or democrat pays attention to it is when it needs to be raised to accomodate spending. Nobody makes any kind of attempt to stay within the limit.

You're wrong.



Furthermore, the debt will become a problem eventually—to the point that raising the debt ceiling will be ineffective. How hard is it to understand that we are not yet near that point? Currently, the United States' debt, as a percentage of GDP, isn't that bad compared to other countries. It's lower than Canada's, Japan's, and Germany's for instance. However, our deficit is larger than it's ever been. That means it will become a problem quickly.

Not so much recently. In the past decade the debt ceiling has been raised at least 10 times.

Ofcourse "recently" has been one dude in charge.

Not to derail the discussion about economics, but, to give some non-Americans some backstory on why Michele Bachmann is so terrible:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/bachmann-santorum-only-gop-hopefuls-to-sign-controversial-marriage-vow-.html
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-craziest-michele-bachmann-quotes

(though, admittedly, I don't wholly disagree with the "not all cultures are equal", R.E. the Taliban practice of apparently burying a gay man alive and then covering the grave with a wall or, under current Afghan rule, execute people for leaving Islam - f*** that noise)

Any whackjob that runs on Family Values will never get my vote, because it represents a fundamental lack of critical and rational reasoning - an inability (and sometimes outright, willful refusal) to look at facts and come to conclusions based on them. [/COLOR]

The saddest part is they could just stop pissing away all that money in Afghanistan.

Look how much we poured into Iraq. And we didn't even get the ****ing oil.

You should ask this guy where the line should be drawn. Also, my friend Mesothelioma told me to tell you that he appreciates your opinion(s).

Nonsense. Helmet laws aren't to protect the person wearing the helmet, they are a natural consequence of liability laws. If I hit you, and you are not wearing your helmet/seatbelt/whatever, you will be hurt worse and I'll be liable for more. It's a result of lobbying from car insurance companies, there is no altruistic motive.

Helmets probably save lives. People that don't wear helmets are probably more likely to be injured or die if involved in an accident where there's impact to the head. The point was that this type of law is a good example of where the line should be drawn (regardless of intent/motive). In other words, it's often quite simple to determine where the line should be drawn, to protect people from themselves (or to protect others from them). It's probable that there are cases where lobbying has resulted in good policies/regulations as an unintended consequence.

My god... the other day I agreed with JM and now I'm agreeing with Freelancer. What the hell is going on around here?

asbestos and trans fat are worlds apart. maybe we should ban people from walking outside? get rid of those pesky Melanoma cases.

seriously though, i get what your saying. i really do. sometimes regulation is necessary. but the trans fat case in particular irks me. its a fat. as has already been pointed out it occurs naturally in some "foods" if you consume it in moderation its not going to kill you, give you cancer, or really even harm you. it just feels like modern society is being finagled into a system where because of previous legislation new and increasingly more intrusive laws and regulations are constantly being implemented.

I could be incorrect but it seems to me that the anti-trans fat movement started with consumers & worked its way in to legislation much later. It's similar to the anti-MSG movement that went on for so long.

While asbestos & trans-fat are indeed worlds apart, they are/were both health concerns. Once we got to the point where women & children were consuming outrageous amounts of trans-fat it was time to do something about it. Trans-fat does occur naturally but that isn't a concern because the types of places where it arises are only going to cause trace amounts to be ingested. I would guess that the same could be said for asbestos (that trace amounts aren't often serious). This isn't the case with processed foods where we have millions of people ingesting little else. You can't expect the average poor single mother in the ghetto & her children to grasp nutrition science just like you can't expect a small business owner to use something more expensive than asbestos. This is why we need regulation. Everyone can't be an expert on everything. We need government regulators to do that for us.

I don't know much about lightbulbs & didn't even read the article but I would assume that the purpose of phasing out the old bulbs is environmental. It seems like a relatively worthy cause to me (the environment). I'm less concerned with someone being a little irritated that their light is white instead of yellow than I am with inefficient lightbulbs that no longer really serve a purpose (other than the fact that they're cheaper than a stamp).

I completely agree with you about intrusive laws & regulations. However, I tend to think more Patriot Act or internet regulation & less light bulb when the thought crosses my mind.

Actually trace amounts of asbestos can be dangerous. It only takes a single fiber to give you cancer.

The reason the lightbulbs are an issue is because every little bit hurts. It's harder to fight the really bad stuff when your opponent has a pile of these little things to stand on.

A pile of lightbulbs??

A pile of ****ty legislation.

They pass more and more legislation. Maybe it's about time we reset again.

Standing on a pile of lightbulbs would hurt, too, if you didn't wear the proper footwear...

There are chemical differences between the natural trans fatty acids found in meat and dairy products and the artificial trans fatty acids found in partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils. Any amount of these artificial trans fats is harmful; small amounts won't kill you, but small amounts of mercury and cyanide won't kill you either, so it is profoundly ignorant to argue against regulations on that basis. If you seriously think legislation limiting the amount of artificial trans fats in food is controversial, you literally have no clue what you're talking about and you have no business expressing an opinion on the subject.

Speaking of mercury, the closest location where I can legally dispose of a CFL bulb is now over two hundred miles away; the local dump has a mercury problem and no longer accepts them. Guess that's another law I'll break with no remorse.

Jon'C, with all due respect. that was a little uncalled for. Telling people they have no business expressing an opinion? Really? The comparison of trans fat to cyanide is stupid. I'll tell you what. For a full week I'll eat a bunch of trans fat laden foods and and you eat a bunch of cyanide laden foods and lets see how that compaison holds up.I'm not going to claim there's nothing wrong with trans fats. Yes, they are unhealthy. And such a campaign was launched against it that I think trying to say "oh but people may not know" is niave. There are lots of things that are not good for you, but I don't think they should be banned. I don't trust the government to draw a reasonable line on how far is too far.

With all due respect (which, quite frankly, is more than I feel like giving right about now), you need to learn what the hell you're talking about. We live in a country where you have so much freedom; and yet you want more. Always more. "It's my choice if I want to harm the planet and drive up energy costs! It's my choice if I want to harm myself and drive up insurance costs! Mine mine mine!" Well, eventually, that anti-intellectual noose you're making will strangle you; and if I'm still alive to see it, I will point and laugh.

And then I will weep for what this world becomes.

Darth_Alran, with all due respect (which is none, because respect is earned) you don't have any business expressing an opinion on this subject. You don't know a ****ing thing about it. Why do you even think it's okay? **** like this is why your country's public education system is the laughingstock of the world.

I don't think you understand. Partially hydrogenated products are a magic potion that was never meant to be consumed by humans. It is a poison, and is about as acceptable as the meat industry allowing rodents and humans into it's packaged goods.

I presume you are opposed to FDA regulations on the manufacture of all other foodstuffs then? After all you should be able to put whatever you want into your mouth. Oh wait, but you of course want to be informed of what you are eating, requiring labeling regulations and...

I don't agree that you have no business expressing your opinion, since you have no credibility and it isn't going to do much harm. Don't be surprised when people laugh at you though.

He's not comparing cyanide to trans fat just like I wasn't comparing asbestos to trans fat. The idea that you can't use an example that is of lesser or greater harm (there's rarely such a thing as an equal/exact comparison) seems silly to me. Asbestos & cyanide are naturally occuring, they're both harmful when ingested & both have been subject to regulation due to the harm in which they cause. Another point to make when considering legistlation is alternatives. There was no need to keep using asbestos (despite the fact that it's still being mined & sold to 3rd-world countries) because there were less harmful alternatives. There are also alternatives to using trans fats that are less harmful. You still have the freedom to woof down an entire bag of potato chips if you'd like. The amount of "freedom" that you lost by elimininating or reducing trans fat ultimately had no effect on you whatsoever, except for psychologically. If you're merely concerned for the well-being of the multi-million dollar companies that possibly had to spend money developing or switching to alternatives then I'd just chalk that one up to experience.


You seem like a relatively intelligent person. I don't think that it should be difficult for you to imagine the possibility that there are people in this world that may not be quite as bright as you. I don't know what type of exposure you've had to the poor & uneducated but I've had a lot. I can assure you that there are people in this world & even in this country that can't even begin to grasp the concept of trans fat. They may have heard about it on television (if they have one) or read about it in a newspaper (if they're literate) but it's likely that they still won't grasp the concept. They may hear somewhere that it's bad for them but they probably don't "trust" science, like many of the uneducated & will just recite the old "everything's bad for you" mantra. These are the same people that cite snow in their backyard as evidence against climate change. These people exist, whether or not you believe it. You must also consider the children of these people. Their children will quite possibly surpass their parents in intellect but only after consuming vast amounts of trans fat for 15 years or so.


The government is the only thing that you have at this point in time. Corporations have proven time & time again that they're incapable &/or unwilling to properly police themselves. Like asbestos, cyanide & trans fat, what's your alternative? Anarcho-Capitalism?

It's also important to realize that without government intervention you usually have no choice. You have no choice because most industries are in (almost) perfect competition and the unsafe business methods are adopted as a consequence of the equilibrium-seeking behavior of the free market.

The free market is just a way of deciding what products should be manufactured, how much should be manufactured, and who should get those products. It's hill-climbing optimization. It's easy to get stuck on local maxima. The only way most industries are able to innovate - especially where you have externalities, like with environmental and health impacts - is if the government steps in and declares certain hills off-limits.

This law is the best thing that's happened to the lighting industry in 50 years. Everybody on earth should love the **** out of it, because it's killed off the 99 cent bulb. Not only is the higher demand driving down the costs of CFLs and LEDs, but now the manufacturers can finally sell (higher-margin) long-life energy-efficient incandescent bulbs.

Personally I find it sad that people see things like wars as such a statement on the human condition. To me it's far worse that we really need laws to prevent us from eating poison and using things that will kill us. As a species, I think we're about as dumb as it gets.

Um, "humans" aren't the problem. Humans don't make childrens' toys out of lead and cadmium. Humans don't knowingly sell HIV- and hep C- contaminated hemophilia drugs. Humans don't buy up farmland just to inflate agriculture prices. Humans don't buy life insurance payouts from little old ladies and bet on how long they live. Humans don't choose ****ing trans fats as a cost-saving alternative! These are not decisions that any human would make.

Firms aren't humans. They aren't even run by humans anymore. Firms are beholden to their shareholders to maximize profits regardless of the impact on society or the environment, and those shareholders are - in turn - publicly-traded banks and mutual funds.

The only humans who have the power to stop the madness are in the government. For example, back before the financial crisis hit, the CEO of Citi (knowing the **** was about to hit the fan) asked the Secretary of the Treasury if he could 'order him not to take so much risk.' If the US government were willing to govern the financial sector, this entire recession would probably have never happened. The executives of these companies are all under such insane pressure to do terrible, evil things that they really have no choice without government intervention - if they refused it wouldn't just mean getting fired, it would mean being personally sued for lost profits.

That's why it is supremely ignorant to discount the importance of this sort of legislation. Even more importantly, it is just arrogant and egotistical to believe this legislation is about you personally. The government doesn't give a **** about you or what kind of light bulb you use. It's about the businesses that make them.

As far as I'm concerned, humans don't get to plead ignorance or powerlessness in cases of egregious moral, ethical, and social atrocities. They're the ones who decided to structure society around maximizing profit at any cost. It should come as no surprise that corporations exhibit mathematically required fanaticism.

Look—I'm whipping out the world's smallest violin for the poor CEOs who are beholden to conscienceless monsters. If they really can be held personally liable (which makes no sense; I thought the whole point of corporations was to eradicate it), perhaps they should have realized it before they decided to take an office without any room for moral consideration. What we really need is the Geneva convention of corporate ethics, which holds individuals personally liable not for lost profits, but for social and ethical cluster****ery.

Better yet, we need to restructure the very fabric of what behavior results in rewards for them. Reward them for good behavior outside that single narrow profit-measure. Relying on legislation to save us from the damage they cause is silly. We shouldn't have to be vigilant for every sociopathic act committed by corporations; we'll be busy for eternity doing that. We need to alter the environment so there isn't such an intense pressure to do terrible things in the name of money.

mentat, you actually somewhat changed my mind on this. point very well delivered. your right, my choices are really not going to be affected by trans-fats being banned, i generally stay away from them anyways. it is just incredibly frustrating that restrictive legislation is constantly being passed, i probably wouldnt care, but like i said, i really do not trust the government to ride the fine line of when enough is enough. and not in a tinfoil hat conspiracy sort of way.

It's funny that you trust giant corporations that exist to make money no matter what over the government which we hire.

No, no, no. I don't TRUST corporations. I don't need to trust them*. I expect and can consistently rely on them to do one thing: make a profit.If I don't like what's in Oreos and soda and potato chips, I don't have to eat them.

*incidentally I do think legislation such as labeling requirements are a good thing. Or most legislation that keeps corporations honest(ha!)

I got use to that a while ago

I would comment on this thread but I am too busy eating all the cheeseburgers

Edit: Derp, I must read entire thread!

Originally posted by Antony:

It's funny that you trust giant corporations that exist to make money no matter what over the government which we hire.

You mean the same government representatives that love corporate donations to get re-elected? I think we are ****ed on that one

Oh don't get me wrong, buck, I agree. But this is about the same level of dumb as people who hate cops for pulling them over for breaking the law. Those cops only exist because *******s like us go around making life dangerous for people.

Still tho..... **** 'Em

End of the day, I just want to be able to use my environmental destroying light bulbs.

Lets get rid of that lack of liability. When a corporation ****s up, instead of holding the 'corporation' responsible, hold the CEO responsible. Your product kills people? All right, we're charging you with manslaughter. Oh, and, all your shareholders, too. The problem would vanish overnight. Shame it will never happen.

When I was in 7th grade my Social Studies teacher asked me what my favorite system of government was. Luckily I was wearing my Anti-Flag tee that day. I cracked my knuckles and reclined in my desk and replied cooly, "Anarchy."

Wow, you were such a cool twelve year old.

What happened?