GOP downplays debt ceiling; president begs to differ

As of Monday, the United States had hit its legally allowed debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has begun borrowing from the pension funds of federal employees — money that by law will have to be replaced — in order to keep things afloat, but he warns that he will run out of such options around the beginning of August.

“Even a short-term default could cause irrevocable damage to the American economy,” Geithner says, warning that it could lead to a double-dip recession or worse.

However, some Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, are trying to downplay the significance of that date. As Bloomberg reports:

“Cantor said he wasn’t concerned about a negative reaction by the bond market if talks between congressional leaders and President Barack Obama continue closer to the date Treasury says it can no longer borrow money to pay U.S. obligations.

“As long as we are being focused and smart about the proposals we’re focusing on, I believe the markets will respond positively,” Cantor told reporters during a visit in Chicago to the Global Command Center of CME Group Inc., the world’s largest futures market.”

However, that’s not what the president had to say about the matter:

wh1wh2
wh3

For the record, the debt ceiling had to be raised 17 times under Ronald Reagan.

– Jay Bookman

396 comments Add your comment

PL

May 17th, 2011
3:21 pm

Now Jay, the GOP always knows best. Just look back through history. Ha!

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:23 pm

The more things change…

The GOP wants a bad economy so they can blame it on Obama. It’s obscessed with winning at any cost come hell or high interest rates. We need more people mopping up the mess and fewer peeing in the floor!

West

May 17th, 2011
3:24 pm

But, but, but…Reagan is their saint!!!!!!

jm

May 17th, 2011
3:26 pm

Ah, the good old days. When a letter would help get something done.

I wonder when the last time Obama sent a letter to Congress was….

Betts

May 17th, 2011
3:27 pm

The only way to deal with these people is to find ways to turn them against themselves by understanding the core issues used by their leaders to manipulate them and then finding ways to pit them against each other so it becomes an internal battle of self destruction.

Kamchak

May 17th, 2011
3:28 pm

20January2009 — that magical day when everything went from hunky-dory to OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!

Mick

May 17th, 2011
3:30 pm

Yeah, the good old days when repubs weren’t bat shiite crazy….

AmVet

May 17th, 2011
3:34 pm

On this date in 1954, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Brown v. Topeka Board of Education,
overthrowing the principle of “separate but equal.”

A great day in American history, thanks to many great Americans including those in the NAACP…

getalife

May 17th, 2011
3:34 pm

Another gop created fake distraction.

They forgot about creating jobs or lied.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:34 pm

Like I asked Cynthia to no response…what’s wrong with Democrats and Republicans working together to include some spending cuts in the debt ceiling bill? Or is it just easier to play the blame game, Jay?

WAI

May 17th, 2011
3:35 pm

Make their heads explode. Point out that the troops won’t be paid if we can’t borrow to pay ‘em.

Obama's Blackberry

May 17th, 2011
3:35 pm

O: When are we going to get a debt ceiling increase.
G(SOT): Don’t know Mr. President.
O: WTF?
G(SOT): Talk to Boehner.
O: B. When r u guys going to increase debt ceil?
B(SOH): Um, soon.
O: When?
B(SOH): well, gotta get the TPers on board unless your D’s will vote in favor
O: Well the D’s oppose ceiling increase like I voted last time
B(SOH): Well, that’s a problem
O: F. You gotta do it
B(SOH): You didn’t.
O: But it was a mistake
B(SOH): Dude, I’m trying.
O: G-d dammit. Where’s Rahm when I need him? Oh yeah, Chicago.

Jay

May 17th, 2011
3:36 pm

what’s wrong with Democrats and Republicans working together to include some spending cuts AND TAX HIKES in the debt ceiling bill?

Why, nothing at all, Peadawg. Nothing at all. I’m all for it.

Paul

May 17th, 2011
3:36 pm

Based on previous posts questioning what passes for knowledgeable authority, is the the point we’re supposed to ask about Cantor’s educational background regarding his knowledge of economics, government finance and bond markets?

“Henceforth, the Treasury Department cannot guarantee that the Federal Government will have sufficient cash on any one day to meet all of its mandated expenses.”

That’s the kicker. For Federal officials, to authorize payments while knowing funds are not available is a violation of law. (It’s a violation even if they don’t know they’re short of obligation authority, but that’s a different matter). So that means all the payments – to the contractors supplying the troops to the lab tests for the FDA and EPA to…. everything, cannot legally be made.

And some here think it’s no big deal. Or they’re anarchists and think it’s wonderful.

SU

May 17th, 2011
3:37 pm

Boner,

Where are the jobs?

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:37 pm

Deficits matter when you have them during good times. They’re necessary during bad.

How come the GOP leadership isn’t talking about cutting the big items like the wars, Homeland Security that needs to be dismantled and Medicare Part D, Bush’s legacies?

I heard Ryan say on CNBC that taxes were scheduled to be raised, like he wasn’t going to oppose letting the Bush changes expire, but the hosts didn’t catch it. I’ll try to find the video.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43060739?par=RSS

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:38 pm

“Why, nothing at all, Peadawg. Nothing at all. I’m all for it.”

So why place the blame solely on the House Republicans? Why aren’t you just as mad at Pelosi, Reid, and Obama? Is it the ‘D’ by their names?

TW

May 17th, 2011
3:38 pm

“They forgot about creating jobs or lied.”

They lied.

getalife

May 17th, 2011
3:40 pm

“They lied.”

They do it all the time.

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:41 pm

Come on Pea, they’ve said tax increases are off the table.

jm

May 17th, 2011
3:41 pm

worth consideration:

Brin’s proposal aims to replace the document President Obama once referred to as a “10,000-page monstrosity” with a mathematical model that can find the simplest “no losers” code.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-05/science-fiction-writer-imagines-simpler-computer-driven-tax-code

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

May 17th, 2011
3:44 pm

Weak argument as that was then and this is now. It’s time for Obama and the party of irresponsibility to spit out the pacifier and face reality. Business as usual deficit spending can’t continue and unless this pattern is finally broken there will be a far worse catastrophe than not raising the debt ceiling waiting for us just a few more miles down the road. A dollar of debt reduction for every dollar level rise in the debt ceiling is the negotiation position the Republicans should stick to.

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:44 pm

If Bush’s changes to the tax rates were allowed to expire as scheduled, the budget would be balanced in 10 years under Ryan’s plan. Of course senior citizens turning 65 then would be without Medicare, among other unacceptable things. We’ve simply got to be smarter consumers with our MEDICAL care dollars and concentrate on health care. That would eliminate a lot of the medical care expense.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:45 pm

“Come on Pea, they’ve said tax increases are off the table.”

For right this moment, that’s ok. Cut spending, raise the debt ceiling, and move onto the budget (tax increases, more spending cuts, etc.). Capeesh?

Granny Godzilla

May 17th, 2011
3:47 pm

I’d say let us default and let the GOP pay the price….

but they never pay for anything….

ever.

getalife

May 17th, 2011
3:47 pm

They will not even cut big oil welfare pea.

Jay

May 17th, 2011
3:47 pm

By the way, there’s a very interesting argument to be made that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

Which is exactly what the debt ceiling would do if enforced.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=real_americans_hate_the_debt_ceiling

josef nix

May 17th, 2011
3:48 pm

I thought Reagan was dead…

And who needs health coverage anyway

Can’t afford a doctor? Go to the airport…free x-ray and breast exam. Mention al Qaaida and get a free colonoscopy.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:48 pm

“Boner,

Where are the jobs?”

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment

It looks like the unemployment rate has gone from 9.8% in January 2011 to 9.2% in March 2011. Not sure what it is now. So what were you saying?

Left wing management

May 17th, 2011
3:48 pm

Betts: “The only way to deal with these people is to find ways to turn them against themselves by understanding the core issues used by their leaders to manipulate them and then finding ways to pit them against each other so it becomes an internal battle of self destruction.”

Or, alternately, just let Newt Gingrich hang around a while shooting off his big mouth.

jm

May 17th, 2011
3:48 pm

Jay 3:47 – I’m no constitutional scholar, but I would gather that more debt incurred would not be “authorized by law”…… due to the existence of the debt ceiling not authorizing additional debt.

Paul

May 17th, 2011
3:48 pm

Recon

“A dollar of debt reduction for every dollar level rise in the debt ceiling is the negotiation position the Republicans should stick to.”

If I’m not mistaken, that will not be nearly enough to balance this budget or any future budget, is it?

Don't Tread

May 17th, 2011
3:49 pm

Well then, that settles it. Let’s just keep kicking the can down the road, and to hell with the consequences later.

Seems our #1 creditor hates freedom and individual rights, anyway – guess we’ll find out how much when they come to take some “collateral” for the money they are owed.

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:49 pm

They’ve already passed a budget that contains no meaningful tax increases and are standing by it. Now is the time to agree to let the changes expire for everyone, not just the rich, but it’s going to be hard to get Obama to agree to that.

Left wing management

May 17th, 2011
3:49 pm

nixie: “Can’t afford a doctor? Go to the airport…free x-ray and breast exam. Mention al Qaaida and get a free colonoscopy.”

Only after returning the rebate slip, don’t forget. :)

Haywood Jablome

May 17th, 2011
3:50 pm

seeing that god has schedule the RAPTURE for the 21st, i don’t really see what the point is.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:50 pm

“They will not even cut big oil welfare pea.” – Ya I’m with you on that one. But it doesn’t seem like either party wants to cut any type of welfare, period.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:52 pm

“but it’s going to be hard to get Obama to agree to that.”

Ya, Obama doesn’t have balls to raise taxes before re-election. So it seems tax increases are off the table for him as well….for now.

Jay

May 17th, 2011
3:52 pm

I see that point, jm, but as the link points out, that’s not how the Supreme Court has interpreted it.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

May 17th, 2011
3:52 pm

Paul,

No it won’t but it’s a good way to start. Just raising the debt ceiling a few trillion dollars on the good faith expectation to address deficit spending at some future date would be foolish.

jm

May 17th, 2011
3:53 pm

“The Court also ruled that any action which lowered the value of government-issued paper was unconstitutional” (from prospect)

Well then, I guess what the Federal Reserve is doing is illegal…Bernanke, off to jail with you!

AmVet

May 17th, 2011
3:53 pm

josef, when I put my 85 year old mom on the plane back to Nebraska last month, they took her aside and gave her the pat down treatment.

Beyond absurd, and she, being the feisty type, was not happy about it.

She threatened to raise a fuss, but I dissuaded her and we went and had a beer. Which had the desired effect!

Paul

May 17th, 2011
3:54 pm

Jay 3:47

Interesting read. Certainly illustrates what most people think may not be the way it really is.

I wonder if the administration will press for a hearing before the Court on this. If they do, get ready for the cries of “he’s seeking to expand the powers of the Executive and trample on Congress!”

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
3:55 pm

“they took her aside and gave her the pat down treatment.”

I’m surprised nobody’s brought up a lawsuit against it siting the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Peter

May 17th, 2011
3:56 pm

WOW the GOP had no problems running up the debt for the 8 year term of Bush..then again, didn’t McCain say they GOP would not work with the Dem’s after he didn’t get what he wanted on the Health care issue ?

Left wing management

May 17th, 2011
3:56 pm

Absolutely right, Jay 3:47 : “By the way, there’s a very interesting argument to be made that the debt ceiling itself is unconstitutional under Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which states”

Bruce Bartlett even argues that there are grounds for the Treasury to take every measure necessary to circumvent congressional obstruction precisely on the grounds that it represents a constitutional and even a national security issue:

Therefore, a potential debt default is far more than a domestic consideration; it is a matter of foreign policy. This is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been warning for some time that the public debt represents an important threat to national security. As attorney Thomas Geoghegan recently put it, “Where the validity of the debt is concerned, our national security is at stake.”

This being the case, I believe that the president would be justified in taking extreme actions to protect against a debt default. In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, I think he should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation’s debts. They are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States and preventing default is no less justified than using American military power to protect against an armed invasion without a congressional declaration of war.

Furthermore, it’s worth remembering that the debt limit is statutory law, which is trumped by the Constitution and there is a little known provision that relates to this issue. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States…shall not be questioned.” This could easily justify the sort of extraordinary presidential action to avoid default that I am suggesting.

People smarter than I am tell me that the Treasury has an almost infinite ability to avoid a debt crisis. I hope they are right. But I am hypothesizing a situation in which the Treasury reaches the end of its rope and a day comes when it needs $X billion to pay interest and it has less than $X billion in cash. Under those circumstances, when default is the only possible alternative, I believe that the president and the Treasury secretary would be justified in taking extraordinary action to prevent it, even if it means violating the debt limit.

Constitutional history is replete with examples where presidents justified extraordinary actions by extraordinary circumstances. During the George W. Bush administration many Republicans defended the most expansive possible reading of the president’s powers, especially concerning national security. Since default on the debt would clearly have dire consequences for our relations with China, Japan and other large holders of Treasury securities, it’s hard to see how defenders of Bush’s policies would now say the president must stand by and do nothing when a debt default poses an imminent national security threat.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2244/republican-anti-tax-position-rapidly-crumbling-under-weight-deficits

josef nix

May 17th, 2011
3:57 pm

AmVet

Better watch out for them terrorist grannies…especially the beer guzzlig ones! :-)

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
3:57 pm

Folks, tax subsidies are NOT corporate welfare. Look at all the jobs and taxes big oil is contributing. And little oil, too, for that matter. But we simply have to conserve and change large fleets over to natural gas.

Paul

May 17th, 2011
3:58 pm

Recon

“Just raising the debt ceiling a few trillion dollars on the good faith expectation to address deficit spending at some future date would be foolish.”

So the Republican position is not necessarily to balance the budget, just get a start on reductions? If that’s the case, why do they care if they or Democrats have a larger number in mind?

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
4:00 pm

AmVet, let me add this to the pat-down thing:

1. I’m going to load up on Mexican and beans before I go to the airport. They’ll get a little surprise when they start messing around back there.

OR

2. I want to choose who does the pat down. If there’s a good-looking girl in line I want her to do it.

TnGelding

May 17th, 2011
4:01 pm

Brin’s idea is interesting and beyond me, but it really isn’t that complicated. A flat tax would be preferable to what we have; with NO exemptions, NO deductions and NO refunds!

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:01 pm

LWM – just spouting his nonsense as usual….. he’s like a Libyan freedom fighter, no aim, just firing blindly at anything and everything in the dark. No logic, no though, just blind reaction.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:03 pm

#
Obama fields fundraising team
By GLENN THRUSH | 5/17/11 10:19 AM

He’s increasingly relying on friends and family to help him reach his billion-dollar goal.

-that dude must have some rich friends.

Kamchak

May 17th, 2011
4:03 pm

If that’s the case, why do they care if they or Democrats have a larger number in mind?

Because size really does matter?

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
4:05 pm

I’ll assume, since Jay hasn’t answered my question at 3:38, that it’s b/c of the ‘D’ by their names. Thanks!

Unless Jay wants to refute that of course….

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

May 17th, 2011
4:06 pm

Well the sea lawyers are on the case, so the issue will be solved here on this blog, this afternoon. The bigger question is why won’t Obama and the Democrats cooperate in making significant spending cuts? That’s what the public wants to see accomplished not a further overreach of government, which contrary to what’s being suggested here wouldn’t fly anyway.

Midori

May 17th, 2011
4:07 pm

Jay

May 17th, 2011
4:08 pm

Peadawg, I think you may have missed my explanation.

Tax hikes have to be any part of a deal. Your preferred timeline of massive cuts to social programs now, and maybe some tax hikes later, isn’t plausible in the least, given GOP insistence that they will ALWAYS block ANY tax hike.

We need a compromise. The party refusing to compromise is the Republicans.

carlosgvv

May 17th, 2011
4:10 pm

The Republican leadership is bought and paid for by Big Business. With that in mind, it’s possible they have ordered their lackeys to engineer a short-term default which would put the nation back into a double-digit recession. Since Corporations are “swimming in cash”, as Jay pointed out, they will not suffer unduly. Meanwhile, Republicans can blame Obama for all the economic suffering of ordinary Americans and insure they win the White House in 2012. This will, of course, make the iron grip Business has on politics even stronger.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:10 pm

“The party refusing to compromise is the Republicans.” debatable

Paul

May 17th, 2011
4:10 pm

Recon

“The bigger question is why won’t Obama and the Democrats cooperate in making significant spending cuts?”

I thought the position was to eliminate the deficit? If that’s the case, then significant or not doesn’t really matter, does it, as the debt will continue to grow?

Dusty

May 17th, 2011
4:11 pm

Let me see if I got this straight:

Democrats make BIG BIG cuts in budget.

Republicans say GOOD. We don’t have to raise the ceiling.

Bookman says nothing will be enforced anyway and…… anything Reagan did is AOK

So what’s the problem?

josef nix

May 17th, 2011
4:12 pm

midori

:-) That was good!!!

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
4:12 pm

“Peadawg, I think you may have missed my explanation.” – Ya, all I see are your grey box responses at 3:36, 3:47, and 3:52…but none of them are to me.

“Tax hikes have to be any part of a deal.” – You and both know that Obama isn’t going to raise taxes before re-election. That’s all talk. But get mad at the Republicans all you want.

“The party refusing to compromise is the Republicans.” – Republicans won’t raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. Democrats want to raise debt ceiling without spending cuts. So who’s not compromising again, Jacob (if it’s just Jay or Jay is short for something else, my bad)? Again, it seems the ‘D’s get a pass.

Jay

May 17th, 2011
4:13 pm

No, jm. Not debatable.

Democrats are willing to discuss spending cuts. Republicans refuse to discuss tax hikes.

Not debatable. And again, you know it.

Bosch

May 17th, 2011
4:14 pm

““Cantor said he wasn’t concerned about a negative reaction by the bond market ”

that’s because he’s stupid.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:15 pm

Jay 4:13 – Obama himself said Social Security: untouchable. And his proposal speech (I hesitate to call it a real proposal) didn’t touch Medicare.

Reid has reiterated those same demands, no touching SS, Medicare or Medicaid. Doesn’t leave much to cut does it?

Dusty

May 17th, 2011
4:16 pm

Midori.

Reagan raised the debt ceiling ….FINE FINE FINE FINE

Reagan cut taxes….NO NO NO NO NO

Maybe you liberals should decide which Reagan you want to resurrect.

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
4:16 pm

Brian McCann for President!!!!!!!

Sorry…had to let it out……homerun to tie it in the 9th w/ 2 outs, and a walk-off homer in the 11th.

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

May 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

Paul,

Not sure I follow your question. The objective is to ultimately get to a balanced budget. Raising the debt ceiling to meet immediate financial obligations should at least be compensated for by a dollar for dollar reduction in spending. What’s wrong with that approach?

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

Jay

The president said that he would not allow significant cuts to Medicare or Social Security as part of the deal, according an administration official.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54800.html#ixzz1Mdv3rwfT

Jay

May 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

“Everything must be on the table as the U.S. Congress works to cut the deficit, including Medicare, Social Security and entitlements, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNBC Monday.

“All the money is fungible, and at the end of the day the deficit has to be reduced,” the California Democrat said the day the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling expired.”

Not debatable.

Bosch

May 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

How many times was it raised during Bush years? Three? Yeah, the faux poutrage of the GOP is blinding.

Also, to Peadawg and others — the government has cut spending — you can ask some of the teachers here in the State and more that are losing their jobs next year

Peadawg

May 17th, 2011
4:18 pm

“Pelosi is full of BS and just spitting out talking points. Behind closed doors, Dems are saying “NO!” to any cuts of Medicare or SS.”

But they have a ‘D’, so it’s ok. It’s all the Republican’s fault, according to Jay @ 4:08.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:18 pm

Jay 4:17 – Pelosi is full of BS and just spitting out talking points. Behind closed doors, Dems are saying “NO!” to any cuts of Medicare or SS.

iRun

May 17th, 2011
4:19 pm

Well, jm, when you put it like that…I guess you should stop making your point altogether…

willie lynch

May 17th, 2011
4:20 pm

It’s interesting you would lead with Ronald Reagan’s request for a raising of the debt ceiling, since it was under Reagan we went from the leading creditor to the leading debtor nation in the world.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:20 pm

President Barack Obama extended a fiscal olive branch to Republicans on Wednesday. Then he beat them up with it.

Obama’s long-anticipated speech on the deficit at George Washington University was one of the oddest rhetorical hybrids of his presidency — a serious stab at reforming entitlements cloaked in a 2012 campaign speech that was one of the most overtly partisan broadsides he’s ever delivered from a podium with a presidential seal.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53164.html#ixzz1MdvbcALn

The centerpiece was a battle cry to his base, a call for $1 trillion in new taxes on the rich — on top of billions saved by allowing Bush-era tax cuts to lapse — in lieu of the deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and now identified with the GOP.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53164.html#ixzz1MdvfwaJ9

Bosch

May 17th, 2011
4:21 pm

Wow jm, what a baby. Jay proves you wrong and you lose it. What’s next? “UH UH! Jay!!”

:roll:

Left wing management

May 17th, 2011
4:21 pm

Ok, jm, Dusty, others, explain me this:

Even the most aggressive Republican plan — that of Paul Ryan — calls for increasing the debt by TRILLIONS in the coming years. TRILLIONS! The HOUSE voted for it.

So to now force a showdown as we simply carry out that very borrowing necessitated by GOP-agreed budgets is sheer madness. It’s simply not defensible.

I keep coming back to the example of a family credit card. It’s like the husband and wife who had an agreement to spend X amount, requiring use of the family credit card to cover the margin not covered by available cash, only to then turn around and threaten to cut up the card, with family members standing to take the hit, if the other spouse doesn’t agree to deeper cuts than were just agreed on.

Dusty

May 17th, 2011
4:21 pm

Ah but BOSCH, you said that everything that Bush did was wrong and now you want to copy him? but but but….. …..

Bosch

May 17th, 2011
4:22 pm

“you said that everything that Bush did was wrong”

I did Dusty???

Message from Matti

May 17th, 2011
4:22 pm

“… Behind closed doors, Dems are saying…”

Oh Super Sleuth, pray DO tell us! How was this recon gathered? Crystal ball, or the old “turned-myself-into-a-fly-and-sat-on-the-wall” trick? I LOVE that one! C’mon… do it again!

AmVet

May 17th, 2011
4:23 pm

Dusty

May 17th, 2011
4:24 pm

PEADOG,

MCCANN DID ALL THAT???Ohhhhhhhh I missed the game. Must have been a great one…GO BRAVES!!

Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)

May 17th, 2011
4:25 pm

The Dem’s do want to cut Medicare. ObamaCare will cut 500 billion out of medicare by discontinuing Medicare Advantage. Sweet Heart deal with the AARP for their endorsement.

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:28 pm

LWM 4:21 – trillions in new debt? Because he’s willing to protect entitlements for the current generation for the Dems. He’s compromising. Dems compromising? Not so much.

pogo

May 17th, 2011
4:28 pm

At this point I can only say, “why the hell not?”. Our country is broke, our President, our congress, our Treasury Secretary and the Fed are addicted to spending and printing money and we have already sold the very financial soul of our country out to foreigners, so why not? What do we have to lose? You are trying to draw some moral equivalency here but it to be frank, it is ridiculous. The actions of Reagan and Bush Sr. led to Clinton having the luxury of having a balanced budget. The actions of Obama and his cronies have just accelerated our country’s financial demise. Obama knows nothing but spending to cure all of this countries ailments. It is in his political breeding. Times are different now and you know it and no comparison can be drawn.

Dusty

May 17th, 2011
4:28 pm

BOSCH

Yes, you did and you still do. Don’t start acting innocent NOW.

TaxPayer

May 17th, 2011
4:28 pm

I guess the Republicans are just gonna have to get back out on the road and meet with the seniors at more town hall meetings and explain to them why they simply must volunteer to throw themselves under the bus so the wealthiest can be given more tax cuts and everyone can prosper, except the ones that volunteered to throw themselves under the bus for the good of the wealthiest but they were expendable anyway. Come on, Republicans! All you need is a good sales pitch. Maybe some better scare tactics. How about some pictures of the wealthiest suffering without another round of tax cuts, the sympathy card.

Paul

May 17th, 2011
4:29 pm

Recon

I see that as reasonable. But my question was, I thought the Republican goal was to balance the budget, not just reduce the deficit? If the goal is NOT to balance the budget, then all they’re arguing over is how much to slow the growth of the debt and how big of a deficit to carry. Somehow, I did not read the Republican position to be “1.4 trillion deficit is not okay… but 800 billion sounds just fine.”

But IF Republicans want to eliminate the annual deficits and pay down the debt, then they can’t (as Ryan has shown) get there unless they eviscerate (word of the day, Bosch) safety net programs. Because they want to keep increasing Defense and keep subsidies flowing to corporate interests. And, of course, those forecasts rely on using some calculation factors (2.8% unemployment) that they should be embarrassed by.

ragnar danneskjold

May 17th, 2011
4:29 pm

A silly essay. For a rational analysis of the risks and consequences of a default, I suggest a review of the Saturday WSJ interview with Stanley Druckenmiller,
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576317612323790964.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

jm

May 17th, 2011
4:29 pm

Matti 4:22 – go read Politico.com for yourself.

Dave R.

May 17th, 2011
4:30 pm

Let’s see . . .

Spread unreasonable and unfounded fear of GOP policies? Check! ;)

Cherry-pick a Republican to try to make the fear point? Check! :)

Write another article that doesn’t do anything but assign blame? Check! :D

josef nix

May 17th, 2011
4:31 pm

AmVet

I had forgotten that one! Thanks… :-)

Feisty old ladies…Mom and I were walking down the street one night and a fellow in the alleyway flashed…she completly missed it and when I told her what had just happened, she went back, he flashed again, and she turned and called to me, “it looks like a penis, only smaller…” and then resumed her stroll…

MarkV

May 17th, 2011
4:32 pm

What the Republicans in Congress are doing regarding the debt ceiling is dishonest and disgusting. They pretend that the dispute is between the interest of the President and the Democrat to raise the debt limit, and the interest of the Republicans to cut spending. The Democrats and the President do not protect their interests, they protect the interest of the country, and the Republicans are blackmailing the country.

Joe Cool~"El Jeffe Obama" Tells Birthers,"Thanks For Playing BI+CHES"

May 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

“Newt Gingrich owed six figures to Tiffany’s:

In 2005 and 2006, the former House speaker turned presidential candidate carried as much as $500,000 in debt to the premier jewelry company, according to financial disclosures filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Man, NEWT been Payin for the Playin’

yes, i know off topic…

Dave R.

May 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

“Everything must be on the table as the U.S. Congress works to cut the deficit, including Medicare, Social Security and entitlements, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNBC Monday.

“All the money is fungible, and at the end of the day the deficit has to be reduced,” the California Democrat said the day the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling expired.”

If only she would have done anything about it when she was in charge for 4 years. Amazing how quickly one can convert when one no longer has power over the other side.

Paul

May 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

jm

“The president said that he would not allow significant cuts to Medicare or Social Security as part of the deal”

The point earlier was that the Administration has offered to compromise on cuts while Republicans will not compromise on taxes.

The quote above is an example of a willingness to compromise. The operative word is ’significant.’ If the President thinks an age extension of one year to collect SS/Medicare benefits is not significant, then it meets the test of willingness to compromise.

josef nix

May 17th, 2011
4:33 pm

BOSCH

It’s your turn tonight! :-)