The utter madness of not raising the debt ceiling
The United States would immediately have its top-notch credit rating slashed to “selective default” if it misses a debt payment on Aug. 4, Standard & Poor’s managing director John Chambers told Reuters.
Chambers, who is also the chairman of S&P’s sovereign ratings committee, told Reuters on Tuesday that U.S. Treasury bills maturing on Aug. 4 would be rated ‘D’ if the government fails to honor them. Unaffected Treasuries would be downgraded as well, but not as sharply, he said.
“If the U.S. government misses a payment, it goes to D,” Chambers said.
“The full consequence of a default — or even the serious prospect of default — by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass the legislation before the Congress adjourns.”
Social Security benefits could be among the first casualties if President Obama and Congress can’t agree to increase the government’s debt limit on Aug. 2, a new analysis shows.
The Bipartisan Policy Center studied Treasury Department receipts and expenditures for August 2009 and 2010 and determined that the government likely would not have enough revenue to pay the full $23 billion payment to Social Security recipients due on Aug. 3.
On that day, according to the analysis, the government would take in about $12 billion in taxes and other revenue but would owe $32 billion, creating a $20 billion shortfall….
“We should be honest with ourselves what this would be like, and the answer is it would be chaotic,” said Jerome Powell, a former Treasury official in the first Bush administration. “There is no way to avoid really serious pain.”
From the Bipartisan Policy Center, documenting what the federal government could and could not continue to pay for once the debt ceiling is hit and the government is prohibited from borrowing additional funds:
Everything above the red line could theoretically be financed, although in practice that would be very difficult because inflows and outflows are so “lumpy,” BPC analysts conclude. (In addition, this is what a “balanced budget” would look like absent additional revenue. To preserve those things above the red line, every expenditure below the red line would have to end.)
In other words, we could continue to pay off bondholders such as China for a few weeks. They could, theoretically, still get paid. But we couldn’t pay our own soldiers. No government salaries would be paid at all, including for those employees who would supposedly be sending out the checks to China and elsewhere.
It is suicidal madness to even contemplate such a step.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
842 comments Add your comment
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
2:53 pm
Dave — “Yes, yes, lovely liz and Peter. We ALL know what happened in the past.”
“Many of us disagreed with it then, but the past no longer matters.”
NIFS
I’d LOVE to see some actual contemporary quotes from conservatives who disagreed with it then. Every Republican who responds to that accusation NOW says it was a mistake, but I don’t recall any of y’all having religion on deficit spending until President Obama was elected. And I’ve never seen any quotes to demonstrate otherwise.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
2:53 pm
Well them Mighty Righty….are you sure that is reflected in the number them ?
Absolutely positive beyond a doubt……… would that number decrease with the pay backs ?
larry
June 30th, 2011
2:53 pm
There you go….no more Voodoo GOP economics you mean ?
Yes, using supplementals to make the deficits look better than they were.
I would like to know why people would trust the GOP with money anyway. All you have to do is look at their track record the last 100 years.
Recon (2nd.and 3rd.)
June 30th, 2011
2:55 pm
I liked Kyles commentary on Obama the budget tenther.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
2:55 pm
@Peter
I see your comments about Bush spending like a drunken sailor. Well, I guess I’m confused. Spending now is at levels never before seen in our country’s history so does this mean that you are against what Obama is doing?
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
2:56 pm
Righty — > Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
Oh, look. President Bush increased the deficit more in his second term than President Clinton did in his whole eight years in office. But IOKIYAR.
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
2:56 pm
Mighty Righty
Sorry but I can’t understand YOUR confusion…(actually I can but am trying to be patient and understanding with you)
AGAIN….what year does the the healthcare bill take effect?
(You know the one with the GREAT BIG SCAREY ARMY OF SEIU AND ACORN AND NEW BLACK PANTHERS AND RAGING GRANNIES WITH NUMCHUKS)
Adam
June 30th, 2011
2:56 pm
Dave R: (when deficits and debt were much smaller, btw, and therefore less threatening to our economic health)
Until we have ANY period of time in which our debt and deficit both go down rather than up, this is a useless statement. If the GOP wins the presidency, that argument could again be made. And guess what the arguments from the GOP side would be? You guessed it, blame the previous admin.
It’s useless to play the blame game when it comes to responsibility for the debt and deficit. It’s ALL of our responsibility to deal with it and we must do so responsibly.
And please, stop pretending the democrats only want tax increases just because the GOP DEFINITELY only wants spending cuts. It’s either deal with it responsibly, or only pass spending cuts. Which will it be?
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
2:57 pm
I’m sorry you don’t lke the deficit figures for Obama’s first year, but would you like to guess at the numbers for his second and third years?
Peter
June 30th, 2011
2:58 pm
larry ……. Folks who have a business love the GOP….. the tax advantages are marvelous, and they typically live in their happy world providing the business is doing great.
Typically they don’t care about others as long as they are getting theirs…..Corporate America is the True example….. They are doing great, and it is not because they care about Americans !
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
2:58 pm
Peter, if you don’t understand the difference between a $5 trillion debt and a $14 trillion debt rising by $1.4 trillion each year, then no serious discussion is possible with you.
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
2:58 pm
Mighty
You sneaky lil’ debbil….are you trying to move the goal posts from “scarey secret army” to something else?
Adam
June 30th, 2011
2:59 pm
Joe Mama: And I’ve never seen any quotes to demonstrate otherwise.
In fact you can find many quotes that show the opposite.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
2:59 pm
Joe Mama. Apparently, you do not understand the whole concept of integovernmental holdings and intergovernmental transfers. Like I told you before, he took money from social security and pretty much transferred the debt he took, giving the impression that he ran a surplus. Regardless of whether it was public debt or debt that was absorbed by social security, he still incurred debt and you, like a fool, fell for it. If he really ran with a surplus, wouldn’t the overall national debt have gone down every year? Here are the numbers from the treasury. Now, you have to do some work but here is what the national debt debt was at the start of every fiscal year of Clinton’s term. Before you start acting all high and mighty and try writing in a condescending manner to me(which coincidentally was what you accused me of doing yesterday when you ran away like a whopped dog because you go smoked), perhaps you should look at the real numbers. Do a little in-depth research next time and include ALL of the facts…not just the ones that pretty much ignore intergovernmental transfers. Now run away. I am done proving you wrong again.
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Is it 2012 yet
June 30th, 2011
3:00 pm
Getalife
Why don’t you do it?
How much are you paid by the donkey party to throw your two liners in the blog spewing your hatred for the GOP?
If this was a non donkey blog, your childish mission would not be tollerated. You sound like the little boy who used to always get his but kicked on the playground and then would go crying to the teacher that you were bullied by those mean girls.
Grow up and get a pair
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:00 pm
“Until we have ANY period of time in which our debt and deficit both go down rather than up, this is a useless statement.”
No, the definition of a useless statement is any statement you make, Adam.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:00 pm
Gotta love Adam, quite a level headed guy, and he’s spot on, debt and deficit has been caused by both parties, not just one.
Thulsa Doom
June 30th, 2011
3:01 pm
Every Republican who responds to that accusation NOW says it was a mistake, but I don’t recall any of y’all having religion on deficit spending until President Obama was elected.- Joe Mama
I would disagree with you on that Joe. I think most fair minded people, Republicans and cons like myself, were very disappointed to see the deficits and debt balloon under Bush. There is a reason the Dems took over Congress and the presidency- people in general and even cons were disgusted with the deficit spending not to mention being doubtful of the need to be in 2 wars in hindsight.
As to the politicians well of course the Repubs in Congress didn’t whine about deficits when they were in power. Why? Well. They’re worthless politicians of course.
But I don’t think many repubs on here will defend spending under Bush. Its just that he ran up roughly 4 trillion in debt in 8 years and Obama has run up just under 4 trillion in less than 3 years. The spending problem has worsened exponentially and not gotten better. And that’s what I think has people very upset. It was bad enough with Bush and now is even worse under Obama in terms of deficit spending.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:03 pm
Memo to self: Send strongly worded letter to Yerkes Primate Center. Re: stalkers.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:03 pm
Scott: Your numbers show a steady downward trend in the amount the debt increased while Clinton was in office. Care for some intellectual honesty as to why?
Hint: It’s the interest on the debt.
Sure, he messed around with all of the revenues to make that start to happen, but had that trend continued the deficit would be going DOWN each year rather than up. We might even have a “real” surplus overall by now.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:03 pm
Hey WOODSTOCK MIKE…….. I would never say I agree with all of Obama’s decisions on spending, but frankly he cares about American’s in a way the GOP has never shown.
I hope like heck we get out of Iraq and Afghanistan soon, and I have no issue spending here at home.
There are bridges, and lost of infrastructure that needs work, and I would like to see more money go in that direction, where at least we can tax the workers and companies doing the jobs, and create a better America for all.
Guy over there
June 30th, 2011
3:03 pm
Jay, your column makes no sense whatsoever.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:04 pm
It is useless to say that at some point in the past, debts and deficits were smaller. That argument can be made infinitely into the future unless we start turning it around.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:05 pm
Hey Dave R. …….how much of the 14 Trillion is interest ? Kind like a bad credit card.
i speak the truth US
June 30th, 2011
3:05 pm
Great job GA
If Deal cant manage his OWN money what makes you think he can manage your money??
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:05 pm
@Peter
Your comments are foolish, first of all, do you realize what employment numbers would be like without corporate America? Do you know many people that work for corporate America? Corporate America gives millions of Americans quite a nice life with retirement benefits, insurance, decent pay, just to name a few things. Owning a business isn’t for everyone. That’s why we all don’t own a business. Of course there should be great reward for someone that runs a profitable business on their own, are you kidding me? Sounds like you have some real issues, you hate corporate America and you bash business owner’s? So what do you like?
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
3:08 pm
Here is the missing 2010 deficit and the projected 2011 deficit.
Obama’s 2nd year 1.293
Obama’s 3rd year 1.645
Brosephus
June 30th, 2011
3:08 pm
Its just that he ran up roughly 4 trillion in debt in 8 years and Obama has run up just under 4 trillion in less than 3 years. The spending problem has worsened exponentially and not gotten better.
In pure numbers, Bush doubled Clinton, and Obama will probably double Bush. The question I have yet to see any analysis on is what effect does inflation, population growth, and other real-life factors have on those numbers. I have yet to see anybody tackle the growing debt from that standpoint, so I don’t think it’s fair to compare any one president to another based on just the dollar amounts.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:09 pm
@Peter
So you bash Bush for spending and it’s okay for Obama to spend? Guess I don’t quite follow…
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:10 pm
WOW…… WOODSTOCK MIKE….
You haven’t noticed the pay between employee and CEO has grown ridicules in the last 15 years ?
You haven’t noticed jobs farmed to India and the such to save Corporations money at the expense of American’s ?
i speak the truth US
June 30th, 2011
3:11 pm
umm guys dont forget the difference between Clinton and Bush/Obama era
1. Inflation
2. Wars
I honestly believe the wars in Iraq/Afghan will end up damaging this country for decades.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:11 pm
OK WOODSTOCK MIKE…..
Given the near depression Obama inherited…..what should he be doing ?
I say raising taxes…….especially on the rich. Also getting us out of Iraq ASAP.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:11 pm
“Hey Dave R. …….how much of the 14 Trillion is interest ?”
Lots.
Thus ends another episode of ‘One Word Answers to Stupid Questions’.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:13 pm
“Scott: Your numbers show a steady downward trend in the amount the debt increased while Clinton was in office. Care for some intellectual honesty as to why?”
A GOP Congress that actually controlled spending.
Next?
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:14 pm
Adam, I am with you on that. I am just merely contending the point that Clinton ran with a surplus every year because in fact he did not. It is a lie that keeps getting repeated over and over and over and it is complete BS. Yes, the amount started going down which brings me to my next thought on this. While you talking about intellectual honesty, how about you tell us who took control of Congress to help these numbers start moving in that direction?
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:14 pm
Clinton’s record: His year-by-year budgets began to see more revenue than spending, a division that grew wider (revenue goes up and/or spending goes down) with each year. This is how you start to pay down debt. This is NOT how you immediately eliminate debt entirely, nor is it how you stop interest from still topping the amount in “surplus” that you have.
Graph form:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9UK4EgvXMx0/S9toS5rwXZI/AAAAAAAAACc/8JK15oLYp2Q/s1600/natdebt.gif
If you look carefully and remember anything about math, you can see a few points during which the curve started to go upward dramatically towards a vertical line, then a point where it started to curve back towards a horizontal line, then back to a vertical.
The vertical trends mean spending was increasing year by year. The horizontal trends mean spending was decreasing year by year.
Those points:
1980: Starts going up
1992: Begins to have horizontal trend
2000: Begins to have vertical trend again
Who were the presidents during these times?
Clinton’s record is that of attempted deficit reduction, with a potential for a continuing trend that would have succeeded.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:14 pm
Gee Dave R. ……Not a stupid question at all……
You are saying Obama is spending this money, when actually he inherited most of the debt, and the interest that goes with it.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:15 pm
Dave R: A GOP Congress that actually controlled spending.
And the GOP Congresses during the years of 1980-1992 (even excluding the years they didn’t have control)? 2000-2006?
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:16 pm
Hey Dave R….
How about Clinton shut down the government until the GOP Congress got on board with him.
Chris
June 30th, 2011
3:16 pm
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” – Barack Obama 2006
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:16 pm
“You are saying Obama is spending this money, when actually he inherited most of the debt, and the interest that goes with it.”
What part of “you don’t get to speak for me nor make conclusions on my behalf” do you NOT get, Peter?
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:17 pm
Scott says: Regardless of whether it was public debt or debt that was absorbed by social security, he still incurred debt and you, like a fool, fell for it.
But then BUSH fell for it too! He said that all of this surplus should go back to the people in tax cuts!
Or don’t your remember that?
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:17 pm
“There are bridges, and lost of infrastructure that needs work, and I would like to see more money go in that direction, where at least we can tax the workers and companies doing the jobs, and create a better America for all”
Again with this BS. That was what the Stimulus was for Holy crap. Shovel ready jobs. I know the term is now a joke in Obama’s eye but that stupid bill was money that came out my pocket and into the hands of people that got him elected.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:18 pm
Scott: GOP wasn’t in control the first couple of years of Clinton’s presidency, and the trend had been started already. In fact, GOP was in control a good portion of the congressional time period from 1980 to 2006, and the spending vs revenue during that period had trends correlating to the presidency by party, not congress.
Thulsa Doom
June 30th, 2011
3:18 pm
I would never say I agree with all of Obama’s decisions on spending, but frankly he cares about American’s in a way the GOP has never shown.- Peter
Peter,
I respect your opinion but this is what drives me crazy sometimes about liberals. You think that Obama “cares about Americans” more than the GOP. That is just your perception and not a fact. Its just your opinion. And even if you were right you can care about America all you want but if your policies aren’t working then quite frankly it doesn’t matter how much you care. I honestly believe that Fidel Castro cares about his country- that he is a nationalist and cares about and wants Cuba to do well. But it doesn’t matter how much he cares if indeed he does because his policies are what has made the country poor.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:19 pm
Hey WOODSTOCK MIKE, Please read…. How 11 Corporate Titans Profited After Failure
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-11-Corporate-Titans-usnews-474283494.html?x=0
Seems these CEOs did great after screwing up royally……. this is the Corporate America I am talking about.
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
3:19 pm
Dave R., why do you not want us to raise the debt ceiling? How ultimately do you justify such a step?
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:19 pm
“And the GOP Congresses during the years of 1980-1992 (even excluding the years they didn’t have control)? 2000-2006?”
Adam, using examples that do NOT apply to an answer is called deflection. It is the first resort of those who have lost their argument.
As has been stated before, GOP control does not automatically mean spending controls, while Democrat control guarantees spending excesses.
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
3:20 pm
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
2:58 pm
Mighty
You sneaky lil’ debbil….are you trying to move the goal posts from “scarey secret army” to something else?
Sorry Granny, didn’t mean to dis you. Missed your post. I do have things besides this to take care of. I will wager a friendly wager, before this summer is over, Obama’s “organized” thugs will cause trouble in several cities. If I am wrong, I will so admit publicly just after labor day.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:20 pm
Also important to note, even under Clinton the debt was going up when we were doing reasonable things and carrying balanced year-to-year budgets. What makes you think we can make that deficit go down immediately, especially through spending cuts or tax revenue increases alone?
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:20 pm
Woodstock Mike: Gotta love Adam, quite a level headed guy, and he’s spot on, debt and deficit has been caused by both parties, not just one.
You and Adam are both correct. EVERYBODY IS AT FAULT.
Now why are we wasting time on “but YOUR PARTY did this” “oh yeah? well YOUR PARTY did that”. Can we at least discuss the RESOLUTIONS of how to fix this mess?
Me? I blame myself for getting sick and needing Medicare at 17 and staying on it for 10 years. No wait, 13 years? dang it. . . getting old. . .
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:20 pm
Yes Thulsa Doom.. the caring is my opinion….. of course.
Now was Dick Cheney caring about Americans, when his office created the “Cost Plus Contracts” ?
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:21 pm
“Dave R., why do you not want us to raise the debt ceiling? How ultimately do you justify such a step?”
LWM, what part of “you don’t get to speak for me, nor make conclusions on my behalf” do you NOT get?
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:21 pm
Dave R: while Democrat control guarantees spending excesses.
Please show me your statistical data that proves this. Remember, you have to show total Democratic control versus total Republican control, versus mixed.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:22 pm
Peter, “How about Clinton shut down the government until the GOP Congress got on board with him.”
HAHAHAHA. So what is it? When the government was going to shut down under Obama, it was the Republican controlled House’s fault. Remember all of the Dems blaming the Republicans saying that they were holding the country hostage by the budget. When the government shut down under Clinton, it was Clinton that did this to apparently get the GOP on board with him. What is it? Oh I see. The answer is that it is whatever reason that is most beneficial to the reputation of the Dem in power at the time. Peter. thanks for that joke of an answer. I needed that good laugh.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:23 pm
Peter @3:15, that is the one fact that really chaps my ___.
From 1995 – 2005 the average American worker saw his income go up 4%.
While at the exact same time, CEO pay went up 240%.
And the modern day flagellants, who apparently love taking it on the chin, think this is the proper and natural evolution of American capitalism.
But their kids are gonna hate them…
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
3:23 pm
Dave R. “LWM, what part of “you don’t get to speak for me, nor make conclusions on my behalf” do you NOT get?”
You lost me. Did I miss something about your position on this? It was a straightforward question.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:24 pm
@Peter
What impact would it have if you lowered CEO’s pay? If the government came out tomorrow and said a CEO can only make a certain amount it would have little or no impact on anything. So it sounds to me that you simply have an issue with someone making alot of money. Does Alex Rodriguez deserve to make $25 million a year? Should Chipper Jones make $15 million a year putting up the numbers he has right now? Where would you draw the line? There is only a handful of CEO’s that are overpaid. For the most part these people do a fantastic job, take a look at the highest paid CEO’s in America and tell me these guys aren’t fantastic at what they do, good for them is what I say.
Guy over there
June 30th, 2011
3:24 pm
“They could, theoretically, still get paid. But we couldn’t pay our own soldiers. No government salaries would be paid at all, including for those employees who would supposedly be sending out the checks to China and elsewhere.”
What a flat out lie. This is nothing but typical Democrat fear mongering. Every single election cycle that comes by, liberals like to try to scare people by saying “granny will die if you elect Repubs” and now we have Jay saying soldiers won’t get paid.
Jay, where did you earn your economics degree from?
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:25 pm
Adam, I am NOT going to do your homework for you just because you are too lazy and afraid that your preconceived notions will be dashed on the rocks of reality.
I have shown that multiple times on this blog and I’m not going to dance to your whiny tune any longer.
Google is your friend.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:25 pm
Scott……. you are welcome ! My answer is correct…..but hey spin it anyway you would like !
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:26 pm
@AmVet
Once again, please explain what the effect would be if a CEO made less money?
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:27 pm
Illogical dude. Funny thing is that I never said Bush was a great Pres. I just know he is far better than the guy occupying the white house right now. I think Bush’s problem was that he spent too much. He spent like a Democrat. He abandoned Rep principles and spent like a Dem. That was his one downfall. Part of the reason he had to spend was that Clinton cut so many good things from the budget that country actually needed(national security, intel, defnse) and replaced them with social programs, but Bush could have handled it differently. So…attack Bush all you want with me. I don’t care. He overspent and helped dig this country a grave. Unfortunately, Obama took it many steps further, dug deeper, jumped in, and started piling the dirt on top of us.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:27 pm
More horible news vis a vis Mission Accomplished…
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/06/30/iraq.service.members.killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
3:27 pm
Uh oh, I see DaveR played the Yerkes card again. Part of his daily play. Dave needs some new material….its no wonder his constituents fired him.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:28 pm
Hey WOODSTOCK MIKE….. The example is real…..
I didn’t say they couldn’t make the money, it is just the discrepancy between the worker and CEO is way out of line today.
And all the guys making the “BIG MONEY”… ball players, CEOs, musicians, and whom ever…..well just tax them.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:28 pm
Peter…I am not spinning it at all. The facts are what make you look like a fool in making that statement.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:28 pm
LWM, I have no problem raising the debt limit, as long as there are deep, guaranteed spending cuts and tax reform in the way of closing loopholes and subsidies, but NO tax rate increases.
And a 2:1 ratio of cuts to debt limit increase as well.
BADA BING
June 30th, 2011
3:28 pm
michelle o’s Militia Fashion and Behavior Guide
Black Panther and Black Muslim Edition
When passing out Muslim Community Literature, never take no for an answer. Remember, YES WE FARRAKHAN
Camo Army Pants in Seale Brown and beige
Work those bowties!!!
Che T-shirts in a variety of summer colors
Save those retro afros for the cooler Fall weather, shaved heads rule
Power to the People!!!! 1/2 Black Power!!
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
3:29 pm
Mighty Righty
Considering you think SEIU and NEA members are Obama organized thugs – nope.
However…
if you want to bet that OBAMA’s SECRET ARMY as formed under the healthcare act causes trouble before 9/22/11 – hell yes I’ll take that bet.
But remember it’s got to be OBAMAS SECRET ARMY….as described in the passage you posted earlier….
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:29 pm
HA HA HA……….. This is nothing but typical Democrat fear mongering. you mean like WMD ?
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:30 pm
Mike, what effect does it have that workers saw an annual increase of .4% for an entire decade?
Are you going to tell me they are not directly related?
Take a look around and take a guess…
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:30 pm
Scott …Clinton shut down the government until he got what he wanted…….that is the fact.
too little time
June 30th, 2011
3:31 pm
sorry fuglyliz, but it is Congresses who increase debt limits and pass budgets. The debt limit was $8.9 trillion when DEMOCRATS took over Congress in 2006. Obama famously declared what an injustice it would be to increase it! The debt is now $14 Trillion. In just 5 short years, the Democrats have run the debt up by more than 50%. There is no excuse. If we increase that limit to 17 or 20 Trillion WITHOUT budget cuts, we will hit the new debt limit in 2 to 3 years.
Folks, threat of economic meltdown is the ONLY leverage that Republicans have to stop the madness NOW. There is no guarantee of Republicans winning both houses of Congress AND the Presidency in 2012. Thus, there is only now. If this doesn’t stop now, then it stops the day that China says “no more”. If it doesn’t stop now, then we put out fate in the hands of foreign bond buyers. THEY get to make the decisions for us they way that they are doing for Greece. If it doesn’t stop now, then the gig is up… anyway. The Democrats had a choice when they put in for a trillion in stimulus. They had a choice when they increased spending in every government sector. They had a choice when they shoved ObamaCare through. Given a choice, they will CONTINUE to spend like there is no tomorrow. They wouldn’t even accept 30 billion in cuts. They wouldn’t pass a budget for two years. While Democrats are well able to spend other people’s money and other country’s money, Democrats are unable to govern. They only tool left in the bag for the Republicans that is sure to work is the threat of the debt ceiling. Democrats can still give up on tax increases. Democrats can still control which massive cuts take place. They have a choice and a voice. But they refuse to use it because they believe that the people not blame them for laying on $5 trillion since 2006. They believe that they spend 5 Trillion dollars and blame it on GWB, and that they will be held blameless for the chaos that ensues. But anyone with simple math skills knows better.. and knows that it has to stop now. We need a budget with AT LEAST $400 billion in cuts and we need it last year. The Democrats still refuse to admit that there is any problem at all. And the American public can see who is trying to fix the escalating budget, and who is playing politics. Democrats WILL suffer the fallout of a failure to reach a compromise. The Democrats WILL suffer the blame for sitting on the sidelines when they had control of both the Senate and the White House.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:31 pm
Dave R: Everything I have looked at has shown me that from 1980-2008 the trends of spending vs revenue follow the president’s party, not the party in control of congress. If you are really going to sit there and tell me two years of 2008-2010 invalidate that and “prove” that if Democrats control everything they will increase spending every time, well, you’re going to have to provide some evidence.
I have looked into this extensively already, and shown my data on a few occasions to back this up. You have not done the same. So don’t pretend it’s me not doing homework, and you having to take some extra time out of your life for this. You should be able to just pull it from your browser history if you’ve been busy finding facts like you claim to.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:32 pm
Scott…..I think Bush’s problem was that he spent too much. He spent like a Democrat. He abandoned Rep principles and spent like a Dem.
No he didn’t……. he started WARS like a Republican…… that is our biggest issue.
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:33 pm
Scott: I think Bush’s problem was that he spent too much. He spent like a Democrat. …. Obama took it many steps further, dug deeper, jumped in
So, again, EVERYBODY is to blame. We got it.
We need to move past the blame portion of the discussion, and move to the “get this resolved” portion of the discussion.
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
3:33 pm
Oh dear, the sky is falling. The usual cadre of liberal lackies have told us so over and over. Henny Penny said it too. THE SKY IS FALLING! Bookman paces the floor nervously as he keeps a watch on the ceiling. Yes sir and mam, this place is going to be smushed!!
Aint it awful! I mean poor Michelle has hardly had time to wash her clothes after her long hot visit to South Africa with her entire family. Now it is time for Martha’s Vineyard and people keep talking about the “ceiling”. The mean old GOP tries to interfere with vacations all the time. Trying to talk with the president. What do they think they are? Vacations are serious business and who cares about the old ceiling?
Yep, vacation time. I think I will go to Greece where they understand finances. I may spend a dollar or two if they’ll take it. I think I’d better get a passport for Henny Penny. Liberals are going to be real mad when they find out she’s a total fraud and they believed her. In the meantime, carry on. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
Peter: No he didn’t……. he started WARS like a Republican…… that is our biggest issue.
And ALSO spent like a… well let’s just say he spent. Medicare Part D and tax cuts are expenses.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
“He abandoned Rep principles…”
Can someone tell me the last time we had a fiscally responsible Republican in the White House?
(Hint: I like Ike.)
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
Hey too little time……..you mean with out tax increases don’t you ? No president in the history of the US cut taxes during a WAR…….except BUSH.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:34 pm
@AmVet
CEO’s are responsible for their employees compensation. So I assume that this isn’t a political conversation because CEO’s are both Democrat and Republican?
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:35 pm
“Everything I have looked at has shown me that from 1980-2008 the trends of spending vs revenue follow the president’s party, not the party in control of congress.”
Then you are blind as well as misinformed.
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
3:38 pm
Doom — “I would disagree with you on that Joe. I think most fair minded people, Republicans and cons like myself, were very disappointed to see the deficits and debt balloon under Bush.”
I wish some of y’all had had the intestinal fortitude to come out and SAY something about it while he was still in office. The fact that y’all were largely silent on it feeds the impression on the left that you’re only bothered by deficit spending when Democrats do it.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
3:39 pm
@Peter
You forgot to add that Obama extended those tax cuts during a time of war… Had the choice to increase but chose not to…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
3:40 pm
I see Dave’s got a new card in the deck….”I claim that I proved it before so now I can just say it and you have to accept it as fact or look it up yourself if you can guess where I got it and how I spun the interpretation.” He played that card yesterday on me… Its weak. Might as well call it the “we all know that X” card….which usually is a false play and wrong.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:40 pm
Peter, I guess it is all relative isn’t it. I had not idea that in the exact same identical situations, the person responsible for shutting down the government can be changed. Under Clinton, it was just slick Willy taking charge and leading from the front and telling the Reps to conform to his beliefs even though his political strategy of triangulation speaks otherwise. Meanwhile in Obama’s situation, it is the Rep controlled House being mean and holding the country hostage. How naive and how sad to think that somebody so clueless can actually help choose a President.
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:41 pm
Woodstock Mike: You forgot to add that Obama extended those tax cuts during a time of war… Had the choice to increase but chose not to…
No, he made a deal to continue unemployment benefits for the GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
Now that we’re past the blame game, how should we get the country to pay off the debt?
godless heathen
June 30th, 2011
3:42 pm
AmVet: “More horible news vis a vis Mission Accomplished…”
So you are noting the number of service persons killed in Iraq? Just the other day you called me sicko for the same thing. Hypocrite.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:43 pm
Logical Dude: Now that we’re past the blame game…
Ha! That’s funny…
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
3:43 pm
Peter
June 30th, 2011
3:19 pm
Hey WOODSTOCK MIKE, Please read…. How 11 Corporate Titans Profited After Failure
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-11-Corporate-Titans-usnews-474283494.html?x=0
Seems these CEOs did great after screwing up royally……. this is the Corporate America I am talking about.
There are exceptions to every rule. I’ve had employees steal from me. Does that mean all employees are dishonest? I have owned two corporations, three if you count converting a C corp to an S corp. Both were profitable. Hired people. Treated them well. Took care of my customers. Provided good products at fair prices. Most of my cusomers felt bad when I sold out. Sold both at a profit. Paid my taxes didn’t violate any laws. I don’t think there was anything I did that most business owners do not do every day they open their business. Also spent many years as an executive of a large multi state corporation. We never took advantage of any of our 4000 plus employees. Never cheated them or our customers. Protected our share holders, met our community obligations and protected our environment. I could go on and on. So I don’t understand the whining, and complaining about evil corporations unless you are just stupid and blind. Durng my life, I have worked for five different cororations, none of which fit anything I hear about on here. All of which leads me to believe that the problem must be with you.
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
3:43 pm
We need to move past the blame portion of the discussion, and move to the “get this resolved” portion of the discussion.
Nice try AGAIN Dude .lol
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:43 pm
Of course, mike!
I’m not into either the Tweedledee or Tweedledum Party.
I am into working class American families.
And watching fat cats sell them down the river, by the millions, while they make ungodly money – even for horrifically mismanaging companies, like what happened on Wall Street – is a crime I will never overlook.
Once again let me state the patently obvious – most American men and women and the companies they run, are completely ethical and operate legally.
Even so, a whole sh*tload of them do not. In fact, we could have a fun little game here. Tell me your favorite Fortune 1000 company and I’ll try to find if they have ever been indicted and/or convicted of any crimes.
You’d be shocked.
And I am adamant that they should face justice, rather than just pay off some slap on the wrist and consider it a cost of doing business.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:43 pm
Amvet, can you tell me that last time we had ANYBODY fiscally conservative in the White House? I am thinking you might end up with the same answer.
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
3:44 pm
Dave R.: “I have no problem raising the debt limit, as long as there are deep, guaranteed spending cuts and tax reform in the way of closing loopholes and subsidies, but NO tax rate increases”
Well, if your view is represented by the GOP leadership — and it appears to be — then if I’m Barack Obama I say go ahead, let’s see what happens. As we start going off the cliff, we’ll see who cracks first. The people of the United States elected this House last November and if that means ushering in financial calamity and accelerating our decline as a nation, then so be it. The people of a democracy can only be shielded from the consequences of their electoral choices so much. Not to be vindictive, but perhaps another serious financial calamity will help them to clarify their vision of their choices among the ideologies that are on offer.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
3:45 pm
AmVet…why that guy Ike infringed on states rights to build and construct their own roads….
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
3:45 pm
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
3:33 pm
LMAO!!!!!
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:45 pm
“Its weak.”
No, Keep, it’s just simply being tired of you and your cronies ADD-like behavior when having to show you the same things I had to show you earlier, because you’re just too damned dense to remember what I posted before.
And I’m not going to do that over and over and over again because of your YOUR deficiencies.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:45 pm
Heathen, read the bottom three links. That was my overarching point.
The place is still a complete clusterf&ck…
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:46 pm
Scott: Well, there was Clinton….