US to avoid default as Senate backs debt ceiling rise

[Jamie.]

lol, the right wing didn't want the US to default....

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

They wanted spending cuts. If the dems had their way, there would be not cuts, increased tax on businesses (yes let's drive MORE companies under) and an increased debt limit.

It would be like giving a 17 year old girl a credit card, and when she racks it up to the limit on lip gloss and stilettos, you increase her credit limit...........

....and when she reaches the limit...increase it again...and again....and again.

Where does responsibility come into play?

They did want the US to default because they thought it would make the big government realise that it needs to live within it's means... (Tea Party right not conservative right)

The Democrats ALWAYS tried to negotiate but the Republicans tried to use this as a political tool clearly and wanted it to be brought up in an election year. I remember 3 days ago Harry Reed said he tried to get Mcconnel into his office to talk about a deal or compromise and never heard back from him all day.

Medicare and Medicaid are not as big of a leech on the deficit as the right wing says, it's BUSH policies and BUSH wars that account for a **** of alot of the US deficit. So for them to turn around and say ''the US has ran up its credit card bill for too long'' is utter nonsense.

The Democrats have been in power 2 years, they haven't done the damage, I can't believe you can say that.

The debt limit was always pushed up...and up...and up under Republican presidents, sudden change of heart to bow to the fundamental conservatives in their party.

The dems only wanted at the start 2 trillion dollars to go back in through revenue (tax increases on the RICH) and they offered cuts in spending of 3.5 trillion dollars. I really don't see how unreasonable that is?

The crazy right wing of America pipe up again claiming the 'mainstream liberal media' and 'hollywood' are against them, they are the party that blocked compromise...they are the party that almost sent the US economy down the plughole with global markets...they are the party that are responsible for 80 pct of this deficit...

Yet people still support them?

If Palin ever get's into the Oval Office I'll send over a donation over to Al Qaeda myself. Moronic woman.

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------

Section of a US political article:

Members of the Tea Party have said they will not vote to raise the debt ceiling no matter what the deal includes.Tea Party Republicans want to create chaos so they can force a Constitutional amendment that would essentially allow radical republicans to end entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The tea party genuinely wanted a default I'm not kidding you they are that desperate for support/'smaller government'.

 

[Joel`]

Tea Party aren't just republicans though, they're the extreme right group of the party that's started growing in stature recently. Just like democrats have some left wingers.

It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if the tea party would allow a default, but I then I seriously doubt they're even capable of understanding how hard defaulting would have screwed their economy. Let alone comprehending that if they allowed it to happen, the finger of blame could easily have been spun firmly onto them. Idiots.

 

[Jamie.]

Tea Party aren't just republicans though, they're the extreme right group of the party that's started growing in stature recently. Just like democrats have some left wingers.

It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if the tea party would allow a default, but I then I seriously doubt they're even capable of understanding how hard defaulting would have screwed their economy. Let alone comprehending that if they allowed it to happen, the finger of blame could easily have been spun firmly onto them. Idiots.

Some republicans make sense, but I don't understand how on earth they have such popular support...

But of course in saying Fox News is biased we are obviously liberals poisoned by Hollywood and the mainstream (sane) media. Idiots.

 

[Jak]

The fact that they will address the debt again in 2013 is quite clever on Obama's part due to the fact that the US should have withdrawn from Afghanistan by then and thus decrease the spending on military actions that, as has been said above, is massive.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

They did want the US to default because they thought it would make the big government realise that it needs to live within it's means... (Tea Party right not conservative right)

They were wanting the government to live within its means, and they didn't believe they'd default, as they thought they were bluffing.

The Democrats ALWAYS tried to negotiate but the Republicans tried to use this as a political tool clearly and wanted it to be brought up in an election year. I remember 3 days ago Harry Reed said he tried to get Mcconnel into his office to talk about a deal or compromise and never heard back from him all day.

D'uh they'd want to use it. Doubling a country's debt in two years is a feat.

Medicare and Medicaid are not as big of a leech on the deficit as the right wing says, it's BUSH policies and BUSH wars that account for a **** of alot of the US deficit. So for them to turn around and say ''the US has ran up its credit card bill for too long'' is utter nonsense.

The Democrats have been in power 2 years, they haven't done the damage, I can't believe you can say that.

They have continued the damage (overspending) of earlier governments

The debt limit was always pushed up...and up...and up under Republican presidents, sudden change of heart to bow to the fundamental conservatives in their party.

The change of heart is due to the fact the debt has increased exponentially under the two last presidents, and unlike Europeans, they're ****** off the government is spending far too much money. Bankrupting your country is generally frowned upon.

The dems only wanted at the start 2 trillion dollars to go back in through revenue (tax increases on the RICH) and they offered cuts in spending of 3.5 trillion dollars. I really don't see how unreasonable that is?

The rich isn't simply the silly rich. In a country where half the households don't pay tax, then the remaining 50% of taxpayers essentially paying 97% of the tax... Well, you can imagine "the rich" is actually simply the people who work harder.

The crazy right wing of America pipe up again claiming the 'mainstream liberal media' and 'hollywood' are against them, they are the party that blocked compromise...they are the party that almost sent the US economy down the plughole with global markets...they are the party that are responsible for 80 pct of this deficit...

No. Roughly half, and Obama has been in charge for 2 years as opposed to their 8.

Yet people still support them?

People support the party that essentially bankrupted the country?

If Palin ever get's into the Oval Office I'll send over a donation over to Al Qaeda myself. Moronic woman.

Palin's definitely not going to run. It's Ron Paul that'll run.

The tea party genuinely wanted a default I'm not kidding you they are that desperate for support/'smaller government'.

Whose fault would a default be? The people who put the foot down and said "no more deficit spending as it simply means future higher taxes on future generations."

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with much of what the Tea Party stands for, but deficit spending is horrible - it's not a leftist/right wing thing anyway; Sweden has constitutionally banned it because even the monkeys across the border realised it's the dumbest idea since Abe Lincoln said "oh, it's raining, let's go to the theatre!"

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

The fact that they will address the debt again in 2013 is quite clever on Obama's part due to the fact that the US should have withdrawn from Afghanistan by then and thus decrease the spending on military actions that, as has been said above, is massive.

100-300$ billion pounds is **** all considered the trillions they've already spent that they don't have.

 

[Montanaro]

I love it when people turn to partisan hackery.

The problem isn't this party vs that, it's all those in the government and all the citizens problem.

I always love the "but Bush" whines and the "Obama is the good guy, he dint do nothings!" sure sign of a biased arrogant viewpoint.

Fact, under Obama, our deficit has grown exponentially with nothing to curtail it. Fact, that trend started after 9/11 with Bush.

Taking money away from those who can actually use it to turn the economy around, only to have the government spend it on pointless programs that will maintain quid pro quo is a travesty.

So I ask again, where/when do we stop spending? Never? Just keep pushing the debt limit and then tax the american citizen even more?

 

[Jak]

the withdrawal of the troops by 2013 in combination with other cuts that will be made in the same time period should really reduce the deficit

 

[Joel`]

the withdrawal of the troops by 2013 in combination with other cuts that will be made in the same time period should really reduce the deficit

The biggest thing about it being 2013 is that it means Obama isn't going to have to go through this again in election year.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

the withdrawal of the troops by 2013 in combination with other cuts that will be made in the same time period should really reduce the deficit

The deficit is 1.6$ trillion. Knocking 200$ billion will help, but it's a drop in the ocean when it comes the debt (14$ trillion). Let's look at history though. In 1937 FDR raised taxes and increased spending in an attempt get out of the Great Depression, after a period of recovery (does this sound familiar at all?). This resulted in a double dip. Woop-de-*******-doo.

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.

 

[Jak]

The deficit is 1.6$ trillion. Knocking 200$ billion will help, but it's a drop in the ocean when it comes the debt (14$ trillion). Let's look at history though. In 1937 FDR raised taxes and increased spending in an attempt get out of the Great Depression, after a period of recovery (does this sound familiar at all?). This resulted in a double dip. Woop-de-*******-doo.

well obviously reducing the debt to 0 is a near impossible task but what needs to be done is reduce it to a manageable level. As Joel said above (I think it was Joel) all countries have a defecit but its making sure that the defecit isn't so massive that causes the country to be financially screwed. The pulling out of Afghanistan etc is a start to reducing this defecit and is better than nothing, as is the plan to reduce the defecit by $2.1tn in 10 years

 

[Joel`]

The deficit is 1.6$ trillion. Knocking 200$ billion will help, but it's a drop in the ocean when it comes the debt (14$ trillion). Let's look at history though. In 1937 FDR raised taxes and increased spending in an attempt get out of the Great Depression, after a period of recovery (does this sound familiar at all?). This resulted in a double dip. Woop-de-*******-doo.

You'd think they'd learn from history. For instance, the UK was dominated by Keynesian theories, but when they started to fail we generally moved on to newer theories that work better as far as we currently know. It's why it really gets on my nerves when people criticise the spending cuts, especially when they don't even have a basis apart from "Lul spending cuts suck!". The Mirror's especially **** in that regard.

This video seems pretty apt:

[video=youtube;d0nERTFo-Sk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/video]

 

[Chaz Sexington]

well obviously reducing the debt to 0 is a near impossible task but what needs to be done is reduce it to a manageable level. As Joel said above (I think it was Joel) all countries have a defecit but its making sure that the defecit isn't so massive that causes the country to be financially screwed. The pulling out of Afghanistan etc is a start to reducing this defecit and is better than nothing, as is the plan to reduce the defecit by $2.1tn in 10 years

It's not impossible. It's not possible to do so in a year, but it IS doable in a few years (I think I read taxes would have to be increased 350% to pay for the current damage). I'm presuming you're meaning the debt to be reduced by 2.1$ trillion in ten years (which is **** all annually), the debt'll be 12$ trillion then. Still nowhere near manageable.

Addendum - Italy's now predicted to collapse as well, or so BBC says. And remember the bunch of people in London saying the cuts were evil?

Joel, have you checked out Austrian economics? They build on concepts and not empirical evidence, as they mean economy isn't an empirical science. Not sure if I agree, but they've been right on a lot of things.

 

[Joel`]

It's not impossible. It's not possible to do so in a year, but it IS doable in a few years (I think I read taxes would have to be increased 350% to pay for the current damage). I'm presuming you're meaning the debt to be reduced by 2.1$ trillion in ten years (which is **** all annually), the debt'll be 12$ trillion then. Still nowhere near manageable.

Addendum - Italy's now predicted to collapse as well, or so BBC says. And remember the bunch of people in London saying the cuts were evil?

Joel, have you checked out Austrian economics? They build on concepts and not empirical evidence, as they mean economy isn't an empirical science. Not sure if I agree, but they've been right on a lot of things.

I know of some of their theories, but haven't really looked at it properly. Not sure I agree with rejecting statistical methods completely, they're still a tool that can be useful, and Maths certainly contributed a lot to economic theory. But then it can't really be over relied on, since it is just a social science so can't adhere to the scientific method the same way the natural sciences would, so I'm not sure how much I agree. I like a lot of their theories though. The important thing is that economists have too little power to change anything, and economic theory is only as good as the politician implementing it, who often won't do the incorrect thing to gain political favour.

Also surprised that it looks like Spain are going to escape. Thought they were going to be next to be honest. Wonder how long before Germany declares the Euro a failed experiment and pulls out.

 

[Jamie.]

I've never felt so liberal in all my life.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal but whatever it is your talking about Chaz is just madness. You do realise your talking cutting thousands upon thousands upon thousands of jobs? Not too mention the family who can't afford private healthcare who would more than likely die of something treatable...And all the families that would be left homeless.

Sweden/European countries who have relatively insignificant domestic based economies can run deficit free I agree but to suggest that the US do that is just absolutely crazy.

It may have been viable 100 years ago to have a USA debt free, and as for the comment on 'super rich' not needing to be taxed because they create jobs...They haven't been creating that many jobs under the Bush tax policy and your forgetting Obama's policy was to stimulate to US private sector into creating jobs, which maybe it was wrong but it is way too far down the road to turn around and start cutting madly into the US budget.

Your talking about losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in cutting the US deficit entirely. On the hope that what, the 'fatcat' businessman will use his tax breaks to buy a new factory rather than buy a new swimming pool?

Not buying into that idea at all.

Italy are ran by a billionaire businessman who has unbelievably leniant tax policies and their job creation figures/deficit are astronomically bad compared to GDP.

The US answer is dependant on sticking the stimulus strategy through, they can't just walk away from it now like it or not...

And this deficit point would NEVER have been a news story in my opinion if the administration didn't sign off on Bush tax cuts back in 2010. Massive OG by the democrats to just sign off on that with the Republicans without inserting a debt ceiling clause.

Big government/Government programmes help alot more people than the people who are happy to dismiss it as socialist agenda's.

If the Tea Party had their way there would be no such thing as traffic lights, far right wing conservatives really need to modernise their ideas because not everyone is content to live in the 1800's.

 

[Joel`]

I've never felt so liberal in all my life.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal but whatever it is your talking about Chaz is just madness. You do realise your talking cutting thousands upon thousands upon thousands of jobs? Not too mention the family who can't afford private healthcare who would more than likely die of something treatable...And all the families that would be left homeless.

Sweden/European countries who have relatively insignificant domestic based economies can run deficit free I agree but to suggest that the US do that is just absolutely crazy.

It may have been viable 100 years ago to have a USA debt free, and as for the comment on 'super rich' not needing to be taxed because they create jobs...They haven't been creating that many jobs under the Bush tax policy and your forgetting Obama's policy was to stimulate to US private sector into creating jobs, which maybe it was wrong but it is way too far down the road to turn around and start cutting madly into the US budget.

Your talking about losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in cutting the US deficit entirely. On the hope that what, the 'fatcat' businessman will use his tax breaks to buy a new factory rather than buy a new swimming pool?

Not buying into that idea at all.

Italy are ran by a billionaire businessman who has unbelievably leniant tax policies and their job creation figures/deficit are astronomically bad compared to GDP.

The US answer is dependant on sticking the stimulus strategy through, they can't just walk away from it now like it or not...

And this deficit point would NEVER have been a news story in my opinion if the administration didn't sign off on Bush tax cuts back in 2010. Massive OG by the democrats to just sign off on that with the Republicans without inserting a debt ceiling clause.

Big government/Government programmes help alot more people than the people who are happy to dismiss it as socialist agenda's.

If the Tea Party had their way there would be no such thing as traffic lights, far right wing conservatives really need to modernise their ideas because not everyone is content to live in the 1800's.

Rule 1 of borrowing. Eventually you'll have to pay it back. So the US government borrows more and more to supplement spending now, but what about future generations, when they have to pay for this governments misgivings with heaps of interest to boot. Cutting thousands of what jobs? Public sector, middle management ones? They're not needed and serve no purpose. A government cannot create wealth, it simply takes from A and gives it to political interest B. The whole thing's just a house of cards, they spend to create "jobs" that add zero economically. This money is going to have to be paid back eventually, to keep spending would be foolish. Just like at the **** Ireland, Greece, Portugal and now Italy are in. Austerity is harsh, but not a single person can offer a plausible alternative apart from "Oh no, it's so unfair!!".

They can run deficit free because they actually see the theory through. The idea is you spend your way out of recession, but the KEY part of that strategy is that you raise interest rates, taxes and reduce spending when times are good. The cure lies in the boom not the bust. The UK, US and others all carried on wildly cutting taxes, increasing spending on RIDICULOUS things and lowering interest rates before market level, and then when recession hit, there was nothing left to spend so we required record levels of borrowing. If you're going to obey an economic theory, at least see it all the way through and not half assed.

The US it seems are starting to cut spending. They can't keep borrowing so much money, it's unsustainable. If you think spending cuts are harsh, then wait until their credit rating gets slashed and their bond yield payments double - That will hurt their economy so much more than spending cuts ever could. Lets not forget that the economies are riddled with inefficiency and useless areas after years of overspending.

Big Government helps no one. The government is incapable of deciding who should have what. The price mechanism is the only true way of allocating resources.

That's ridiculous. There's no benefit for a private sector to build traffic lights, so they don't and government must provide them out of necessity. It doesn't mean the government has to provide EVERYTHING, just the things that the market can't and won't provide. As I said, government is incapable of creating wealth, only private sector businesses can. Growing the public sector only puts more strain on the private sector to support it, a private sector that's already struggling enough.

 

[Jamie.]

I always wondered what to do with that hammer and sickle...Now I know.

Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!

Guess I'm just one of those who is an idealist, no ones wrong IMO just two different points of view...

Both have examples of working, deficit isn't a bad thing to help grow a country and without the recession the deficit would be smaller in my opinion.

I believe that a governments role is to provide a standard of living for all no matter what the predicament, I don't buy the private sector would create mass jobs because the reality is there is only so much demand for supply and alot of firms are overstaffed at the minute as it is. A strong public sector is the difference between third world and first world in my opinion, would rather a government helped the poor than satisfy the rich and powerful.

I will say this, if I had my way there would be unelected officials (Economists) placed at high levels of government to do a little more than advise. I would rather they wrote up policies or at least help draft them, if we had this country's best private accountants/economists running our books for the past 20 years then I highly doubt we will be in this situation.

Difference between a banker and an economist? An economist possesses common sense.

If Russia ever becomes a free market economy, may god help us all.

 

[Joel`]

But we're talking about the US, the UK who are grown and economic forces. Why prolong an unsustainable boom by spending? Governments have tried many times in history to maintain high prices for certain assets (Mainly houses) but all they're doing is taxing your ever day man in order to maintain inflated prices, at the cost of wasting resources. We invest in housing markets because credit becomes too easy to gain, firms invest their money to sell houses at what they believe to be a market clearing. After all, the law of supply is that firms increase their output in order to sell at the higher price, but when the housing bubble bursts we're left with wasted resources, and they have to be sold below the cost price in order to shift them, wasting resources and money.

The deficit would of course be smaller without the recession, the point is we'd already run up a ridiculous deficit in the boom by creating middle management public jobs we simply did not need. So, when the recession hit countries had nothing to spend, required even more borrowing and now a debt crisis is sweeping America and the EU. Answer me where deficit spending is coming from, we have to pay it back eventually, you're just taxing the future to pay for now, which is stupid.

The private sector creates jobs to satisfy their needs, I never said they'd create mass jobs, I said they create wealth. Two completely separate ideas. The public sector doesn't need to be "strong" at all. You cannot have a public sector without a private sector, the public sector should be the bare minimum that society needs. So you're fine with creating middle management jobs in the NHS, wasting scarce resources that could actually do something as long as the employment figures look a bit stronger? What about your average private sector worker, not the rich and powerful, that's being taxed to fund someone to do a job we have no need for? That's fine?

So by your ideology, war should be good economically? We're spending plenty, and unemployment would practically be zero to fill the army. But it's not, because we're taking the resources to produce food in order to produce an army. So we'd have zero employment, but we'd have nothing else. That's an extreme example of why an inflated public sector is a terrible idea.

We can't just pour money into an inflated industry and hope the boom continues, it's impossible, there's not enough resources to do it, eventually we'll have a bust and we can't afford to have nothing left at such a time.

Everyone loves the idea of spending to provide for everyone, but where do we get the money from?

 

[Jamie.]

If they cut building anymore nuclear weapons that would be a fair chunk off the defence budget, Obama represents the centre left of the world at the minute...

The only major economy to my knowledge using stimulus as a policy to get out of the recession, figures aren't good but the UK governments fiscal plan of cuts doesn't seem to be working either.

I would remove the state pension threshold, put it alot lower...On par with the private sector retirement package. I would be radical with some cuts, I would ring fence defence/education/healthcare and hold OBR reviews into each department to find savings.

But back to the US point, Conservative politicians hardly did a bang up job through tax breaks so I would argue tax the super rich harder and maintain status quo on the middle class...Because that is genuinely wholy responsible, I can't see conservative argument in America that Obama shouldn't try and better balance the system to support the lower classes/people in need because the reality is they wouldn't be in that situation if the private sector didn't lay them off/ignore them.

I just can't see yours and Chaz's points on cutting the deficit harshly, it will absolutely kill off the economy no doubt in my mind.

You cut 10 pct a year off the deficit and there is no way that without new revenues in the way of tax rises that the private sector would weaken even more.

It's a two way streak that you can't have both ways, a strong public sector generally leads to a stronger private sector...You brutally cut the public sector and the private sector responds, some cuts/savings are obviously needed but if the previous conservative administration didn't get the US into 2 long term wars and top heavy policies then there wouldn't be much of a discussion. Maybe a 4-5 trillion dollar deficit in oppose to what we have now, so the idea of fundamental mismanagement I don't buy into.

UK economy wise, we have gone down the route of cutting the public sector and IMO the defence cuts are SERIOUSLY naive and under thought. How on gods green earth does selling our ENTIRE fleet of Harriers to the US at 40 pct of their value make sense?

But defence cuts are another issue...*sigh*

UK economy isn't growing one ounce since the cuts, so how is that helping any sector or anyone?

I just think either policy both Obama's/UK's is doomed to fail because of the severe toxicity that still lingers in the financial market in the form of government bonds, seriously worry about the fact that there is probably more public money in the private sector now in the form of debt bonds than money actually coming in. UK economists generously predict a 3% growth in GDP in the next 3 years, that is a couple of % short of government predictions.

I would jump on your deep cut/future generation bandwagon if I saw any signs at all that it was working.

 

[Joel`]

That's why most of the world is following in austerity cuts? And the IMF supports them that we're on the right track. Cutting isn't supposed to be an immediate solution. It's fixing a long term problem. Spending doesn't fix anything, it doesn't create wealth, which is what we're getting at. We can't support spending more without earning more. If we don't cut now, it'll be you in 20 years paying the price. Are you happy with that? It won't kill the economy, it won't save it either. There is no way for us to escape recession, it's a natural occurrence. As I've stated many times, the idea is you build a surplus during the boom so you can reduce the impact of the recession. We didn't do that, so we have no choice but to cut because we have NO MONEY. You can't spend what you don't have. If you lost your job, would you go out and buy a Ferrari to maintain your happiness for a while longer? No? Then why are you supporting the government do that.

If you cut spending there's no need for tax rises to support it. There's no need for more borrowing than we need. The private sector builds itself back together, entrepreneurs take over and employ more people, which creates wealth which in turn creates more jobs which is how you get out of recession.

A strong public sector in no way leads to a strong private sector. It's completely the opposite. Do explain to me how the public sector strengthens the private sector.

You seem confused, I don't see what point you're arguing from. You seem against having debt, but then you're against cutting the public sector? You can't look at cuts as a solution to the downturn. They're in essence the opposite to that. What they are doing is ensuring a more prosperous future for us.

Feel free to jump on the 'bandwagon'. It's not supposed to be showing signs of working, it's a long term solution that will get frighteningly out of hand if we do nothing. Without cuts the only we can possibly head is towards Greece, Ireland, Portugal, US etc.

" some cuts/savings are obviously needed but if the previous conservative administration didn't get the US into 2 long term wars and top heavy policies then there wouldn't be much of a discussion." - This is the essence of it all, it shouldn't of happened but it did, we can't change history so all we can do is play the hands we've been dealt. How can you be against top heavy policies but then not support lesser spending? This is why I'm confused with what you're arguing.

 

[Montanaro]

One of the downfalls of the USA was running those "fatcats" out of the nation!

Raising taxes on businesses (which is different from the individual) has proved to be a bad idea. It's hard to compete with China and now Mexico with their low costs, but the US certainly hasn't done much to encourage business. I've heard some awful stories about my state alone regarding preventing business growth.

Add the fact that our culture has turned lazy as **** and very few people are willing to work for less pay (but actually have a job) and you've got the makings of a **** economy. Instead these people take government jobs and get paid with my money. It's a perpetual cluster ****.

Do you know that illegal and legal mexicans are actually crossing the USA border...............back into Mexico for jobs!

This all boils down to a combination of US citizen mentality and fiscal policies of our government. It's as if it'll take even higher unemployment rates and hyper inflation to make the citizens snap out of their arrogant trance.