Standard Transmission

U.S. Army mechanic servicing a transmission on a heavy truck, during World War Two.

My son recently obtained his "regular" driver's license and therefore is now competent, in the eyes of the state to operate conventional motor vehicles on the public roads.  The vehicle that we own that he's generally allowed to drive is a 1997 Dodge D1500 4x4 pickup truck.  For some reason, over time, this locality has become Dodge central.  We have three Dodge pickup trucks, and they're all standard transmission trucks.  We also have a Chevrolet Suburban, and its an automatic.  Maybe all newer ones are.  Anyhow, the topic of driving came up the other day and he mentioned that a friend of his asked him about how to drive a standard transmission, which is a question I don't think I'd have thought to ask anyone when I was 16 years old.  I knew how to drive a standard transmission.  I think that all the boys I hung out with did.

Which isn't to say that we all drove standard transmissions all the time when we were first driving.  Thinking back, at age 16, I'd owned a vehicle, a Jeep, that had a standard transmission for a year by the time I obtained my license.  But my next vehicle, a Ford F100 (yes, F100, they don't make a "light" half tone any more, but in 1974, the year mine was made, they did) was an automatic transmission.  So was the next vehicle I owned after that, a 1974 Dodge D150.  But since the D150 I've never personally bought another automatic.  I prefer manual transmissions.  I have owned two, sort of.  I inherited a 1973 Mercury Comet, a great car, that was an automatic, and the car that we bought a decade ago for my wife is the aforementioned Suburban.

But I've owned a lot more standards and the only times I've actually purchased a vehicle new, they were standards.  I've owned just about every type as well, from "three on the tree" types, now a thing of the distant past, to the once very standard four speed transmission, to the current six speed.  As most of my vehicles have been 4x4s as well, I've also always had, on my vehicles, the manual shifter for the transfer case.  On one older 4x4 I once had, I had three levers, one for the transmission, one for the high and low range of gears in the transmission, and one for the transfer case, a once very common arrangement that  even those who drive modern standard transmission 4x4s would probably be baffled by at first.

I can't say really why I prefer standards, but I do.  I guess I like the ability to determine what gear I think I should be in, rather than have hydraulic pressure determine that for me.  And most more work like trucks were standards. But that's soon to be a thing of the past.  My guess is that within the next decade a person will have to be driving a very heavy truck in order for it to be purchased with an automatic. When electric vehicles come in, and they will, standards will be irrelevant completely, as they work differently.

Even within the past three decades this trend has been pretty evident.  At the time that I was getting ready to leave the National Guard for law school, thinking that I wouldn't have time to be a Guardsman and a law student (an erroneous decision that, hindsight being 20/20, I would have made differently, staying in the Guard while in school and after) the Army was acquiring automatic transmission heavy trucks to replace the old standard transmission trucks.  Training time, and lack of soldier familiarity with standards, was the reason why.  Since that time I think it's become almost impossible to acquire a manual in a pickup truck except if it was made by Chrysler, and the end of that day is in sight.

Gear shift and Transfer Case shifter, for my (rather obviously dirty) Dodge D3500.  A view of this type will soon be a thing of the past for new vehicles, I suspect.

This is not to say that I'm lamenting this.  I do think manual transmissions are a better option for folks who know how to really use them for trucks, but most people no longer learn how to drive a standard transmission. Shoot, most people don't even call them "standard transmissions" and automatic transmissions really are the standard today.  When electric vehicles come in they won't feature a transmission of this type at all, and neither the current automatic transmission or the manual transmission will remain, although to most drivers of automatics the difference will not be noticeable.

But what a difference it makes in regards to some people's ability to drive.  Back when standards were the norm, there were some who had problems driving simply due to that. My mother barely learned to drive an automatic, I can't imagine what driving a standard (if she ever did) was like for her.  And today, many people simply can't do it. They don't know how.

 Note:  We've added a poll on this topic off to the side.

Wyo Whiskers: Fenimore Chatterton | Wyoming Postscripts

Wyo Whiskers: Fenimore Chatterton | Wyoming Postscripts

Holscher's Hub: Nocturnal Ursine Visitors

Holscher's Hub: Nocturnal Ursine Visitors: About a decade ago a bear visited our backyard in the middle of the night.  Stuffed bear head, literally, on my office wall. This bear...

Today In Wyoming's History: October 30, 1918-2013

Today In Wyoming's History: October 30, 1918-2013:

October 30, 1918-2013

As a short addendum to today's entry, it's interesting to note that tonight the Boston Red Sox will attempt to wrap up their bid for World Series Champion in their hometown. If they are successful, it'll be the first time that Boston has won the Series at home since 1918, the year of the short season caused by the World War One "Work or Fight" ban on continued play.

That's sort of interesting in and of itself, but it's also interesting in the historical context in the contrast it offers between World War One and World War Two. The Wilson Administration really took a much heavier handed approach toward the home-front than FDR later did in a wide variety of ways.

Today In Wyoming's History: October 29: National Cat Day

October 29

 Today is National Cat Day.

The Big Picture: Ft. McKinney in 1909.

Today In Wyoming's History: October 25: World Pasta Day

Today In Wyoming's History: October 25:

Today is World Pasta Day.

Why, I don't know, but that's what it is. The University of Wyoming's American Heritage Center has a post up for today, October 25, 2012, on this event, and asks the question of whether pasta was part of your diet growing up.  It was for me, fwiw, and I suspect for most other people as well, but not with the many fine varieties available today.  "Macaroni and Cheese" was a frequent noon meal when I was a kid, and not the kind that comes out of a box.  Indeed, I've never liked the box kind, which strikes me as somewhat anemic.  Spaghetti was also a frequent at our house, which was the regular boxed spaghetti noodle type, with a red sauce made from tomato soup and with, typically, antelope or deer as the meat in the sauce.  I can't ever recall having ground beef used in spaghetti sauce as a kid at our house.  And macaroni noodles, i.e., elbow noodles, occasionally showed up in shrimp salad, which my mother occasionally made.  And of course, there were canned "beenie weenies, etc." that had noodles in them.

I'm sure I didn't have any of what I would have regarded as exotic pastas, like lasagna, in a homemade example until I was in university.  Otherwise, that was exotic restaurant fare. 

The Big Speech: Henry V Agincourt speech

October 25, 1415. English forces numbering 12,000 defeat French forces numbering 60,000 at Agincourt.

This is the event so famously recalled by Shakespeare in his "band of brother's speech for Henry V:

Enter the KING

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
    But one ten thousand of those men in England
    That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
    My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
    If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
    To do our country loss; and if to live,
    The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
    God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
    By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
    Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
    It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
    Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
    But if it be a sin to covet honour,
    I am the most offending soul alive.
    No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
    God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
    As one man more methinks would share from me
    For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
    Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
    That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
    Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
    And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
    We would not die in that man's company
    That fears his fellowship to die with us.
    This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
    He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
    Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
    And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
    He that shall live this day, and see old age,
    Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
    And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
    Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
    And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
    Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
    But he'll remember, with advantages,
    What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
    Familiar in his mouth as household words-
    Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
    Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
    Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
    This story shall the good man teach his son;
    And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
    From this day to the ending of the world,
    But we in it shall be remembered-
    We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day

The Big Speech: Tennyson on Balaclava (on its anniversary). The Charge of the Light Brigade.

1854  The legendary British cavalry charge at Balaclava occurred: 

            Half a league, half a league,
            Half a league onward,
            All in the valley of Death
            Rode the six hundred.
            "Forward, the Light Brigade!
            "Charge for the guns!" he said:
            Into the valley of Death
            Rode the six hundred.

            2.

            "Forward, the Light Brigade!"
            Was there a man dismay'd?
            Not tho' the soldier knew
            Someone had blunder'd:
            Their's not to make reply,
            Their's not to reason why,
            Their's but to do and die:
            Into the valley of Death
            Rode the six hundred.

            3.

            Cannon to right of them,
            Cannon to left of them,
            Cannon in front of them
            Volley'd and thunder'd;
            Storm'd at with shot and shell,
            Boldly they rode and well,
            Into the jaws of Death,
            Into the mouth of Hell
            Rode the six hundred.

            4.

            Flash'd all their sabres bare,
            Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
            Sabring the gunners there,
            Charging an army, while
            All the world wonder'd:
            Plunged in the battery-smoke
            Right thro' the line they broke;
            Cossack and Russian
            Reel'd from the sabre stroke
            Shatter'd and sunder'd.
            Then they rode back, but not
            Not the six hundred.

            5.

            Cannon to right of them,
            Cannon to left of them,
            Cannon behind them
            Volley'd and thunder'd;
            Storm'd at with shot and shell,
            While horse and hero fell,
            They that had fought so well
            Came thro' the jaws of Death
            Back from the mouth of Hell,
            All that was left of them,
            Left of six hundred.

            6.

            When can their glory fade?
            O the wild charge they made!
            All the world wondered.
            Honor the charge they made,
            Honor the Light Brigade,
            Noble six hundred.

The Big Speech: Adlai Stevenson at the United Nations, October 25, 1962

 I want to say to you, Mr. Zorin, that I do not have your talent for obfuscation, for distortion, for confusing language, and for doubletalk. And I must confess to you that I am glad that I do not!

But if I understood what you said, you said that my position had changed, that today I was defensive because we did not have the evidence to prove our assertions, that your Government had installed long-range missiles in Cuba.

Well, let me say something to you, Mr. Ambassador—we do have the evidence. We have it, and it is clear and it is incontrovertible. And let me say something else—those weapons must be taken out of Cuba.

Next, let me say to you that, if I understood you, with a trespass on credibility that excels your best, you said that our position had changed since I spoke here the other day because of the pressures of world opinion and the majority of the United Nations. Well, let me say to you, sir, you are wrong again. We have had no pressure from anyone whatsoever. We came in here today to indicate our willingness to discuss Mr. U Thant’s proposals, and that is the only change that has taken place.

But let me also say to you, sir, that there has been a change. You—the Soviet Union has sent these weapons to Cuba. You—the Soviet Union has upset the balance of power in the world. You—the Soviet Union has created this new danger, not the United States.

And you ask with a fine show of indignation why the President did not tell Mr. Gromyko on last Thursday about our evidence, at the very time that Mr. Gromyko was blandly denying to the President that the U.S.S.R. was placing such weapons on sites in the new world.

Well, I will tell you why—because we were assembling the evidence, and perhaps it would be instructive to the world to see how a Soviet official—how far he would go in perfidy. Perhaps we wanted to know if this country faced another example of nuclear deceit like that one a year ago, when in stealth, the Soviet Union broke the nuclear test moratorium.

And while we are asking questions, let me ask you why your Government—your Foreign Minister—deliberately, cynically deceived us about the nuclear build-up in Cuba.

And, finally, the other day, Mr. Zorin, I remind you that you did not deny the existence of these weapons. Instead, we heard that they had suddenly become defensive weapons. But today again if I heard you correctly, you now say that they do not exist, or that we haven’t proved they exist, with another fine flood of rhetorical scorn.

All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question: Do you, Ambassador Zorin, deny that the U.S.S.R. has placed and is placing medium- and intermediate-range missiles and sites in Cuba? Yes or no—don’t wait for the translation—yes or no?

(The Soviet representative refused to answer.)

You can answer yes or no. You have denied they exist. I want to know if I understood you correctly. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over, if that’s your decision. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room.

(The President called on the representative of Chile to speak, but Stevenson continued:)

I have not finished my statement. I asked you a question. I have had no reply to the question, and I will now proceed, if I may, to finish my statement.

I doubt if anyone in this room, except possibly the representative of the Soviet Union, has any doubt about the facts. But in view of his statements and the statements of the Soviet Government up until last Thursday, when Mr. Gromyko denied the existence or any intention of installing such weapons in Cuba, I am going to make a portion of the evidence available right now. If you will indulge me for a moment, we will set up an easel here in the back of the room where I hope it will be visible to everyone.

The first of these exhibits shows an area north of the village of Candelaria, near San Cristóbal, southwest of Havana. A map, together with a small photograph, shows precisely where the area is in Cuba.

The first photograph shows the area in late August 1962; it was then, if you can see from where you are sitting, only a peaceful countryside.

The second photograph shows the same area one day last week. A few tents and vehicles had come into the area, new spur roads had appeared, and the main road had been improved.

The third photograph, taken only twenty-four hours later, shows facilities for a medium-range missile battalion installed. There are tents for 400 or 500 men. At the end of the new spur road there are seven 1,000-mile missile trailers. There are four launcher-erector mechanisms for placing these missiles in erect firing position. This missile is a mobile weapon, which can be moved rapidly from one place to another. It is identical with the 1,000-mile missiles which have been displayed in Moscow parades. All of this, I remind you, took place in twenty-four hours.

The second exhibit, which you can all examine at your leisure, shows three successive photographic enlargements of another missile base of the same type in the area of San Cristóbal. These enlarged photographs clearly show six of these missiles on trailers and three erectors.

And that is only one example of the first type of ballistic missile installation in Cuba.

A second type of installation is designed for a missile of intermediate range—a range of about 2,200 miles. Each site of this type has four launching pads.

The exhibit on this type of missile shows a launching area being constructed near Guanajay, southwest of the city of Havana. As in the first exhibit, a map and small photograph show this area as it appeared in late August 1962, when no military activities were apparent.

A second large photograph shows the same area about six weeks later. Here you will see a very heavy construction effort to push the launching area to rapid completion. The pictures show two large concrete bunkers or control centers in process of construction, one between each pair of launching pads. They show heavy concrete retaining walls being erected to shelter vehicles and equipment from rocket blast-off. They show cable scars leading from the launch pads to the bunkers. They show a large reinforced concrete building under construction. A building with a heavy arch may well be intended as the storage area for the nuclear warheads. The installation is not yet complete, and no warheads are yet visible.

The next photograph shows a closer view of the same intermediate-range launch site. You can clearly see one of the pairs of large concrete launch pads, with a concrete building from which launching operations for three pads are controlled. Other details are visible, such as fuel tanks.

And that is only one example, one illustration, of the work being furnished in Cuba on intermediate-range missile bases.

Now, in addition to missiles, the Soviet Union is installing other offensive weapons in Cuba. The next photograph is of an airfield at San Julián in western Cuba. On this field you will see twenty-two crates designed to transport the fuselages of Soviet llyushin-28 bombers. Four of the aircraft are uncrated, and one is partially assembled. These bombers, sometimes known as Beagles, have an operating radius of about 750 miles and are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. At the same field you can see one of the surface-to-air anti­aircraft guided missile bases, with six missiles per base, which now ring the entire coastline of Cuba.

Another set of two photographs covers still another area of deployment of medium-range missiles in Cuba. These photographs are on a larger scale than the others and reveal many details of an improved field-type launch site. One photograph provides an overall view of most of the site; you can see clearly three of the four launching pads. The second photograph displays details of two of these pads. Even an eye untrained in photographic interpretation can clearly see the buildings in which the missiles are checked out and maintained ready to fire, a missile trailer, trucks to move missiles out to the launching pad, erectors to raise the missiles to launching position, tank trucks to provide fuel, vans from which the missile firing is controlled, in short, all of the requirements to maintain, load, and fire these terrible weapons.

These weapons, gentlemen, these launching pads, these planes—of which we have illustrated only a fragment—are a part of a much larger weapons complex, what is called a weapons system.

To support this build-up, to operate these advanced weapons systems, the Soviet Union has sent a large number of military personnel to Cuba—a force now amounting to several thousand men.

These photographs, as I say, are available to members for detailed examination in the Trusteeship Council room following this meeting. There I will have one of my aides who will gladly explain them to you in such detail as you may require.

I have nothing further to say at this time.

(After another statement by the Soviet representative Stevenson replied:)

Mr. President and gentlemen, I won’t detain you but one minute.

I have not had a direct answer to my question. The representative of the Soviet Union says that the official answer of the U.S.S.R. was the Tass statement that they don’t need to locate missiles in Cuba. Well, I agree—they don’t need to. But the question is, have they missiles in Cuba—and that question remains unanswered. I knew it would be.

As to the authenticity of the photographs, which Mr. Zorin has spoken about with such scorn, I wonder if the Soviet Union would ask its Cuban colleague to permit a U.N. team to go to these sites. If so, I can assure you that we can direct them to the proper places very quickly.

And now I hope that we can get down to business, that we can atop this sparring. We know the facts, and so do you, sir, and we are ready to talk about them. Our job here is not to score debating points. Our job, Mr. Zorin, is to save the peace. And if you are ready to try, we are.

The Big Speech: President McKinley asks for a Declaration of War on Spain

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America:

I transmit to the Congress for its consideration and appropriate action, copies of correspondence recently had with the representative of Spain in the United States, with the United States minister at Madrid, and through the latter with the Government of Spain, showing the action taken under the joint resolution approved April 20, 1898, "for the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and Government in the island of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect.

Upon communicating to the Spanish minister in Washington the demand which it became the duty of the Executive to address to the Government of Spain in obedience, to said resolution, the minister asked for his passports and withdrew.  The United States minister at Madrid was in turn notified by the Spanish minister for foreign affairs that the withdrawal of the Spanish representative from the United States had terminated diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that all official communications between their respective representatives ceased therewith.

I commend to your especial attention the note addressed to the United States minister at Madrid by, the Spanish minister of foreign affairs on the 21st instant, whereby the foregoing notification was conveyed.  It will be perceived therefrom that the Government of Spain, having cognizance of the joint resolution of the United States Congress, and in view of the things which the President is thereby required and authorized to do, responds by treating the reasonable demands of this Government as measures of hostility, following with that instant and complete severance of relations by its action which by the usage of nations accompanies an existent state of war between sovereign powers.

The position of Spain being thus made known, and the demands of the United States being denied, with a complete rupture of intercourse, by the act of Spain, I have been constrained, in the exercise of the power conferred upon me by the joint resolution aforesaid, to proclaim, under date of April 22, 1898, a blockade of certain ports of the north coast of Cuba, between Cardenas and Bahia Honda, and the port of Cienfugos, on the south coast of Cuba, and to issue my proclamation dated April 23, 1898, calling forth volunteers.

I now recommend the adoption of a joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, that the definition of the international status of the United States as a belligerent power may be made known and the assertion of all its rights in the conduct of a public war may be assured.

          

President McKinley.

The Big Picture: Co. C, Wyoming National Guard, Powell Wyoming in 1916.

Numéro en kiosque (1er octobre 2013) - L'actualité

Numéro en kiosque (1er octobre 2013) - L'actualité

Wow, according to L'Actualite, the US will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's leading producer of petroleum oil by 2020.  And the boom there is creating 2,000 millionaires per year in North Dakota.

Headlines I never thought I would have seen.

T. E. Lawrence

All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did.

T. E. Lawrence.  Seven Pillars of Wisdom

Budgetary Confusion

Given that the Federal shutdown is the topic of the hour, perhaps its not surprising that there's so much confusion on various topics related to this.  But, because I think it important to the discussion, the following things are worth keep in mind.

1. How did the Federal Government shut down?

It has no budget. Congress hasn't passed one, and they haven't passed a continuing budgetary resolution to carry on in the absence of one.

2. Why did that cause a shut down.

There's no legislative authorization to pay anybody or anything.

3.  Does that really matter to me?

Probably.  One of the things people are surprised to find in a time like this is how broad the budgetary reach of the Federal government is.  Some things are no surprise at all.  For example, right now air traffic controllers are working for free. That is grossly unfair to them, as they have to work and they have to eat, their children have to go to school, etc., and there's no money coming in. Same with the BLM, which still has to monitor drilling, mining, and livestock raising on the Federal Domain.  But in other areas, people are finding that various local town and city projects, which seem very local, are suddenly shut down, as they rely on grant money.

4. Does that mean that these things should be budgeted?

Well something should clearly be.  Everything?  Well, that depends on your view.  The main parts of the government must be, really.  Peripheral things, well that's another topic.

5. So the government is shut down as we don't agree on what to spend money on?

No, not at all. The Government is shut down to due to an argument, more or less, over the Affordable Health Care Act.

6.  Huh?

Yes, that's right. This started as a GOP effort in the House of Representatives to defund or at least delay implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act.  To some extent its morphed a bit, as an argument, as at least in the Senate the GOP proposed to basically delay implementation and the Administration disagreed with that proposal, or the Senate Democrats did.

7. What does that have to do with the budget.

One of the oddities of the American political system is that Congress can pass an act which requires funding, but not fund the same thing. Budgeting has always been separate. So, you can get into a situation in which there's an authorization for a program, but no funds for it.

That itself is more common than a person might suppose.  For example, the Federal government at one time required industries under the jurisdiction of the Mining Safety Health Administration to have a certain number of people certified in training by MSHA.  However, Congress didn't authorize funding for that for years, so there was no training offered by MSHA.  In order to attempt to comply with the law, companies would send an employee to a similar course of training conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.  That wasn't really compliance, but it was as close as they could come under the circumstances.

Or, to give another example, very late during the Vietnam War, after the U.S. had withdrawn, Congress denied funds to provide for US forces to be active in the fighting late war.  This actually could have developed into a Constitutional crisis, but did not as the Administration at the time had low interest in becoming re-involved.  It's always been considered a given, however, that Congress can dispute the deployment of US forces in any one place by denying funding for any one military expedition, but Congress is always very reluctant to do that.

Here, however, we see something else going on.  The GOP members of Congress, or at least a fair number of them, strongly disagree with the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act and are refusing to pass any budget.  Traditionally, they would have refused to fund the AHCA, if they disagreed with it. That would have caused the President to be presented with a budget omitting funding for the program and then he's have to decide whether or not to sign the budget (I suspect he would not).  Here, however, this started off as a refusal to pass any budget until the AHCA was taken up.

7. That's because the AHCA is so massively expensive, right?

Nobody really knows right now.  You can find estimates running both ways. This is more of a philosophical debate.

8.  And that has everything to do with the debt ceiling, right?

No, nothing at all

9.  Huh?

The debt ceiling is actually a complete different topic.  It is a statutorily created amount which prohibits the US from borrowing money above that amount.  It's perfectly possible to have an argument about the debt ceiling without arguing about the current proposed budget, or the AHCA.  Indeed, the only connection between the two is that passing a budget that isn't balanced creates the debt.

10.  So we're really arguing about balancing the budget?

No, not at all.

The current debate would actually make a great deal more sense, from a logic stand point, if the those who oppose raising the debt ceiling did so on the basis that a ceiling is a ceiling, and continuing to raise it is dishonest.  But that's not the topic.

11.  It isn't? Well what up with the debate on the debt ceiling?

The debt ceiling is basically being held hostage to the budget debate.  Last time it was debated the actual topic actually was whether or not we dare go over that dollar amount.  Now, however, its been sucked into the budget debate.

12. Well clearly we must raise the debt ceiling, right?

Probably at least through the end of the year, but raising it every time it comes up is dishonest. At some point, the debt actually has to be addressed.

13.  That's impossible, isn't it?

No, not in the abstract it isn't.  The New York Times ran an article last year showing how even minor adjustments can actually result in a balanced budget.  But neither political party is willing to take the steps necessary to do that. Even the steps discussed are only bandaids.

Balancing the budget, however, is not rocket science.  But it does cause pain.  Simply put, the Federal Government would have to cease funding a lot of the peripheral things it now funds.  Or people have to decide that they do want the Federal government to fund those things.  If they decide that, and indeed in any event, the Federal government is going to have to take in more tax revenue. There's no way to raise the boat of the economy up to where it will ever pay for expenditures at this level.  Even reducing expenditures significantly just wont derive that result.

That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to raise income taxes, and if you do, it doesn't mean you need to raise them on everyone.  There are all sorts of other taxes. But, taxes are taxes. And expenditures are expenditures.  The government is borrowing an absurd amount of money and it really shouldn't be, as that can't go on forever.

14. And that's what the debate will center on the next couple of days, right?

I doubt it.

The Big Picture: Thermopolis Wyoming in 1918

Everyone The U.S. Government Owes Money To, In One Graph : Planet Money : NPR

Everyone The U.S. Government Owes Money To, In One Graph : Planet Money : NPR

Scalia: The devil is getting 'wilier' and society is getting coarser

Scalia: The devil is getting 'wilier' and society is getting coarser

Man who appeared in court is legally dead, judge says

Man who appeared in court is legally dead, judge says

Friday Farming: Planting corn, Jasper County Iowa, 1940.