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
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:46 pm
Real Scooter: 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”
Hey, I do what I can!
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:47 pm
Dave R: because you’re just too damned dense to remember what I posted before.
Or maybe I didn’t see it and have no way of finding it.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
3:47 pm
LWM…I have every fear you may be right. Not all of the people were misled. Unfortunately we only have one vote and limited representation.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:47 pm
Scott, no question.
And the War on the American Middle Class has been raging pretty much unabated for at least 30 years…
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
3:48 pm
Well, the problem is solved. The FAT CATS did it. Call in the big dawgs. The FAT CATS dun did it!!!! Now why didn’t we think of that???
Conservative Geezer
June 30th, 2011
3:49 pm
CUT OUT ALL ENTITLEMENTS, STOP TAXING ME, AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
Independent
June 30th, 2011
3:49 pm
By Standard and Poors ratings process given just before the collapse of AIG and Lehman’s the US govenment will continue to have a AAA rating up until it files bankruptcy. After all, their ratings are “only their opinions”.
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
3:50 pm
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
3:29 pm
Mighty Righty
Considering you think SEIU and NEA members are Obama organized thugs – nope.
I will take that as an admission that Unions are Obama’s thugs.
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
3:50 pm
I made a large reply to Scott at 3:35 that’s stuck in moderation. Here’s the short version:
Presidents before and after Clinton have done *the exact same thing* you’re complaining about, yet none of them have ever shown an annual surplus — except for the first couple of years of the younger Bush’s Administration — when he was still coasting on the Clinton surpluses. You can complain all you want about some sort of revenue shell game being run by Clinton, but the fact of the matter is that every recent President has done the exact same thing as Clinton, but none of them showed a surplus. So what’s more credible? That Clinton somehow was *better* at balance-sheet sleight-of-hand or that Clinton *actually* ran a surplus?
If you’re going to get me to buy into the notion that Clinton somehow shuffled assets around in order to make it *look* like he was running a surplus, then you’re going to have to explain to me how come no *other* recent President was able to do that and you’re going to have to show me that he was doing something that they *weren’t.*
I’m not impressed by your citation of Treasury numbers; anyone who’s dealt with government agencies knows that the CBO is *much* more authoritative when it comes to the actual daily nuts and bolts of where money comes from and where it goes. Treasury performs very high-level analysis, and citing their numbers is a good way to gloss over things you don’t want other people to notice. The CBO looks at where money *actually* comes from and where it’s *actually* spent. And here are *their* numbers. Have a look at it all, but I suggest you look at page 1 in close detail.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables1.pdf
You will notice that the decrease in outstanding debt in the later years of the Clinton Administration is significantly *larger* than the corresponding increase in the SS surplus, which is conveniently broken out for you. Therefore, your ’shell game’ argument is invalid.
If you want to play nice with me, I’m game, but I don’t run and you need to try decaf. Otherwise, I can dish it out as well as you can.
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
3:51 pm
Dusty: The FAT CATS did it. Call in the big dawgs. The FAT CATS dun did it!!!! Now why didn’t we think of that???
No dont’ go all WILD on us. It’ll turn into an ANIMAL HOUSE if this keeps up! No more MONKEY business!
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
3:51 pm
“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.”
LWM, as I explained earlier to getaclue, Hope & Putt ™ can’t do that any longer (politically).
He’s already publicly articulated the need for cuts and for increasing the debt ceiling.
The House will pass a bill that has all that I suggested earlier.
The Senate will balk initially, but we’ll be too close to the deadline to make any substantive changes and they will pass it as well.
Hope & Putt ™ MUST sign it, or he gets blamed for defaulting on the debt.
The blame game only works when you’re NOT in power. He is.
This is a political battle he can never win.
josef
June 30th, 2011
3:52 pm
ZamVet
“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.”
Except, of course, if we’re talking about their lineal ancestors of the Glorious Occupation…they were the good guys…
Sorry, ZamVet, just trying to get a new thread…
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:53 pm
Joe Mama: Your link is a 404.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
3:53 pm
Amvet….game number two. Give me a poltician’s name and let’s see if anybody in their campaign or administration has ever been convicted of similar crimes. Yet, based off of what I see you write on here, you would like to see everybody give them more control of our money. yeah…because they are ethical and trustworthy. They would never use taxpayer money to “buy” votes. Nope…not ever. They would never devise a giant ponzi scheme out social security. Nope. Note ever. They would never create these little things call earmarks and pet projects and attach them to bills that they have nothing to do with.
Tell me AmVet. You say you are for the working class families. What will have a greater effect on them? Not having those funds available in that “little black box” called social security and having the elected politicians divy up taxpayer money for political power or having corporations commit the crimes you listed? I know that you, like many, will say that the corporate crimes is worse, but that is only because nobody will see that the effects of the illegal dealings of our politicians for 20-30 years when they see a much smaller than expected social security check in the mail.
luckjoe
June 30th, 2011
3:54 pm
The Democratic led congress has not balanced the budget in 2 an a half years. Now, Community President Organizer wants to rant that the sky is falling, and this if after shoving Obamacare down our throats. He is an arrogant socialist and the sooner he is out of office the better.
Mighty Righty
June 30th, 2011
3:56 pm
By Standard and Poors ratings process given just before the collapse of AIG and Lehman’s the US govenment will continue to have a AAA rating up until it files bankruptcy. After all, their ratings are “only their opinions”.
All ratings are opinions, but these opinions have consequences in as much as they impact interest rates.
Granny Godzilla
June 30th, 2011
3:56 pm
Mighty
You CAN take it that way if you wish to deceive yourself….no skin off my nose.
But I’ll double dog take your response as you are afraid to bet based on the your posted description of OBAMAS SECRET ARMY.
I have one last word for you…..wimpy.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:56 pm
luckjoe:
1) Tell me when the last time congress had a balanced budget was
2) Tell me what “Obamacare” has to do with not having a balanced budget
3) Define socialist
4) Address ALL 3 points, not just the one(s) you think is/are easy.
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
3:58 pm
Adam — thanks for the heads up. Here’s an alternate method. Go here:
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.cfm
And find this text along the right side of the page:
Historical Budget Data
A compilation of data on the government’s revenues, outlays and deficits or surpluses for the past 40 years. Figures are reported in nominal dollars and as a percentage of gross domestic product.
pdf excel
You can then choose a pdf or Excel file, as you prefer.
Uncle Billy
June 30th, 2011
3:58 pm
kimmer et. al. The debt ceiling was enacted in 1917 during WWI. Until then Congress had to approve each and every borrowing by the Treasury. That was the reason it was enacted. To get around every issue of debt instruments having to be approved by Congress.
One and all, instead of using the word “politicians” use the phrase “the peoples’ elected representatives.” No one sneaked in and took a seat. Each and every one got there through an election.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
3:59 pm
because you’re just too damned dense to remember what I posted before.
DaveR, you are not authorized to speak about what I should remember about your purported posts. You don’t speak for me nor make conclusions on my behalf about what should be read or ignored on this blog. Get it Davey?
Now that we have the silliness out of the way, I hope you are not so dense (your words) to suggest that you are particularly important to remember or that you have provided conclusive evidence of your posts. You can either back up your claims or not…your choice. Its also my constitutional right to have an opinion of what your words mean or don’t mean and to determine that you may not be factual. The American way, Dave…. I know its hard to remember because your used to ranting at RINOs and claiming some Republicans will vote certain ways because of some magical info. If you want to discuss your posts and NOT you, then provide some support for your claims.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
3:59 pm
Yet, based off of what I see you write on here, you would like to see everybody give them more control of our money.
Please explain and expound with specific quotes from me. Making claims is easy. Time to pony up.
Or don’t.
BTW, you sure are asking me a lot of questions. Which is ironic considering that your very first post to me today was, “…you bring nothing to the table.”
josef
June 30th, 2011
4:00 pm
good fight
@ 3:45
“AmVet…why that guy Ike infringed on states rights to build and construct their own roads”
Ssshhh…don’t bring up state’s rights like that…it’s “evolving” as we speak…
DAVE
I’m trying, Son, but I can’t do it alone!
Enough Already
June 30th, 2011
4:01 pm
Jay is right. I don’t say that very often. The problem is how does each side get enough maneuvering room to get done what we need done?
The Repubs are beholden to their corporate masters so they cannot allow closing corporate tax loopholes and tax dodges for wall street traders. A good solution for additional revenue would be a large pot solution like Reagan did (taxes don’t go up they just get broader with less deductions for everyone).
The Dems “earn” their votes by bringing home benefits for their peeps. How are they going to agree to take some slop out of the trough? The system of having states draw up the election boundaries ensures that the feds give their favorite states some cash to buy votes also. This needs to stop. If Minnesota needs a new bridge, they can buy it. Why should Oregonians pay for a light rail system (or port) in Georgia?
We REALLY REALLY REALLY need a viable third party or an alternative electoral system. We have reached electoral gridlock.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
4:01 pm
Joe Mama….fine you got me. We will accept that a surplus was run during the Clinton years. Thank you Rep-led Congress. If it wasn’t for you, we would never have had a surplus. Happy now?
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
Jay,
I’m resigned to rename your blog CONFLATION STATION. You just can’t help this immature effort to be right about the entirely wrong things. First below, in your two previous articles: you rehash the class-envy schtick: “How can we go on and NOT tax the rich.” Note the problem the 2010 election addressed was SPENDING, not taxes, which even Democrats, when they had absolute Washington power, refused themselves to raise. So, here we are, the Adolesident Obama chastizing Republicans for not legislating tax increases that even Democrats were reluctant to do. Let’s tax the rich, Obama says, but you’ll have to trust him to realize any spending cuts at all–not a wise move there for the country.
Then we have the utter nonsense below: “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.”
This is pure imagination! Whatever the government decides to pay is up to the exchequer and congress.
Where’s all the leadership on this we expected? Where’s the Adolesident during budget negotiations he commanded Biden to attend? Playing golf yet again, one is willing to imagine.
But in the world of conflation station here at the ajc, it is all disaster all the time. In Tucker’s worldview disaster is caused by white people and their racism. In Jay Bookman’s little Weltanschauung, it is simply republicans. I don’t want the nation to default either, but if that happens, then it will be advancing the inevitable anyway, should Adolesident Obama win another four years in the White House. Oh yeah, and we can look for plenty more non-leadership from him too.
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
Adam
June 30th, 2011
3:56 pm
Dang Adam,thats a hard test.Glad you were not one of my teachers. lol
Scott
June 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
Amvt, You like Obamacare and Stimulus. That was more taxpayer money going into government hands wasn’t it or do believe that this money just appeared out of nowhere?
Doggone/GA
June 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
“Thank you Rep-led Congress. If it wasn’t for you, we would never have had a surplus”
/snort Yep, they deserve our thanks all right. Heck, all they did was force a government shutdown – until Clinton got what he wanted.
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
4:05 pm
Hi REAL SCOOTER
How ya doing? Just sitting around waiting for the adults to show up?
I surely do hope Bookman did his laundry today. We need a new sheet here worse than the KKK welcoming committee. (Note: I know nothing about the KKK except they wear sheets, unless they are like Weiner and wear only underwear. But who knows? I certainly don’t.)
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
4:05 pm
Ok now I know how this works, when Bush runs up a deficit it’s horrible for the country, when Obama runs up a deficit it’s FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
4:06 pm
Doggone…and the Republicans are so proud of that moment that Newt is the #1 contender for President
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
4:07 pm
You like Obamacare…
Another fallacious statement based on nothing but your fantasies.
I railed against it. Repeatedly.
Keep digging though, you’ll get yourself out of that hole…
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:07 pm
Joe Mama: OOOO Excel sheet! That means I can make my own charts!
Peter
June 30th, 2011
4:07 pm
Mighty Righty…You did the right thing..Great…..the CEOs pay as compared to the employees are way out of line…that is my point.
And many corporations don’t do the right thing, so I am happy you were one of them.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:08 pm
AmVet: I’m curious, what was your objection to ACA
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
4:08 pm
Since I don’t see many people posting solutions, here is a suggestion:
It took us 40 years to get into this much debt, so we’re not going to get out of it soon. By Jay’s chart, JUST THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT is about 30 BILLION PER MONTH. So, I estimate that at 360 BILLION PER YEAR. and that’s just the interest.
SO, what do we do?
We have to keep paying the bill that we have obligated ourselves to pay. That means RAISING THE DEBT LIMIT. But if we keep doing that, that Interest on the debt will keep going up as well. That is money that cannot be used for anything else, and is increasingly crimping our ability to run the country. There is NO DOUBT that we need to not only balance the budget, but run a significant surplus: JUST TO BREAK EVEN.
Now we can cut spending significantly (DUH)., which will get us partly there.
But we also must INCREASE REVENUE. (another DUH). Because as we cut spending, that’ll reduce much of the money flowing through the country. (for example, Reducing the military causes less people in the military, who now won’t earn government money to pay taxes on).
Another thing that will help is when more people get hired. This will increase the revenue base and allow for great revenue overall. The danger is then cutting taxes at that time. We shouldn’t do that until the debt is paid down significantly (as long as it doesn’t affect the rest of the economy)
This isn’t going to be completed in Obama’s administration, even if he serves 2 terms! and other circumstance may make the deficit increase again. (war, famine, pestilence, natural disaster)
This is going to take a dozen years at least, and likely more because it’ll be hard to break even in a recession or with high unemployment. Incremental changes are needed in some areas and significant changes are needed in other areas.
Government Study after Government Studay say similar things, but politicians are becoming too political to actually do what is needed to save the country. they all seem to only care how they can benefit themselves or their party.
Thomas
June 30th, 2011
4:08 pm
The bill, AB 28X, takes effect immediately. The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year, but critics claim it will raise nothing because online retailers will end their affiliate programs rather than collect the tax.
There is the problem with myopic thinking. Would it be that difficult to have leadership that says 1) folks are living older so SS and medicare do need to be adjusted accordingly 2) tax rates are going up on certain folks and institutions but the tax code is going to be radically simplified. (for my lefties screw the credits for never going to the marketplace green sh*t- you guys are just as bad) 3) the non paying base is going to be set at 10-15%, not 30-40%.
Anyway- back to my golf game and world travel
Peter
June 30th, 2011
4:08 pm
Please……..Ok now I know how this works, when Bush runs up a deficit it’s horrible for the country, when Obama runs up a deficit it’s FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
It is never good for the people to run our country into the ground !
Doggone/GA
June 30th, 2011
4:09 pm
“We REALLY REALLY REALLY need a viable third party or an alternative electoral system”
In a two-party dominant system a third party is counterproductive, because it will “steal” votes from whichever of the two main parties it is closest to…thus virtually ensuring the election of the OTHER party.
As for a different system, keep this in mind (I don’t know who said it): In a multi-party system, compromises are made after the election. In a two-party system compromises are made before the election.
Now, I’ve mentioned this here before – but it’s been a while. Quite a few years ago now, I saw a report on some research that was done on elections. They were studying what would be the fairest election system. Their conclustion was that instead of voting FOR one candidate, the voters should have to rank every candidate in the order they prefer them. From 1 to whatever, and the candidate with the lowest cumulative ranking wins.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
4:10 pm
josef….why just earlier today I thought of you when I reminded a new tenant from the North that the Late Misunderstanding was just on pause.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:12 pm
Doggone: In a two-party dominant system a third party is counterproductive, because it will “steal” votes from whichever of the two main parties it is closest to…thus virtually ensuring the election of the OTHER party.
That’s why, even though I think the extremist wing of it is wrong, I support libertarianism rising up to become that third party.
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
4:13 pm
I’m of the opinion that any blogger who utters inanities along the lines of “we should ignore the opinions of the ratings agencies” because they are “only their opinions” ought to be slapped with a one day suspension from posting to the blog.
Contemporary capitalism operates based on the principle of credit, insofar as the credit markets supply the blood that makes the system run. For someone who otherwise claims to support and defend free market capitalism to come on here and utter something that stupid ought to have real consequences if you ask me.
DBCOOPER
June 30th, 2011
4:13 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.
Senator BH Obama
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
4:14 pm
Scott — “Joe Mama….fine you got me. We will accept that a surplus was run during the Clinton years. Thank you Rep-led Congress. If it wasn’t for you, we would never have had a surplus. Happy now?”
Yeah, um, you and your ‘whooped dog’ comment can kiss my butt now.
I voted Republican and Libertarian for 20+ years of my life. I enlisted in the Army during the Reagan Administration. I’m a disabled veteran. I am *not* some sort of True Believer non-thinking nitwit who always toes the party line. I never voted for a Democrat in my LIFE before 2004. And for some jackass like you to come off the hip with a bunch of crap like you did a little while ago really chaps my behind.
If you want to discuss things politely and like a couple of adults, and you can set your partisanship aside, then I would be more than willing to have a conversation with you. But if you’re going to post that kind of ‘you’re dismissed’ bulldada you posted earlier, then I don’t really think we need to have any further conversations.
Where we go from here is your choice. If you want to play nice, I’m game. If you’re going to be a jackass again, then you’ll be jackin’ it by yourself.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:14 pm
Doggone: Quite a few years ago now, I saw a report on some research that was done on elections. They were studying what would be the fairest election system. Their conclustion was that instead of voting FOR one candidate, the voters should have to rank every candidate in the order they prefer them. From 1 to whatever, and the candidate with the lowest cumulative ranking wins.
That sounds quite interesting! Is there a name for the study or the people who did it so I can look it up?
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
4:14 pm
@Peter
The point is that if you eliminated the CEO’s pay completely and divided it out amongst the employees it makes almost no difference to anything. Take a look at this clip…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw8y__JgdjY
MiltonMan
June 30th, 2011
4:14 pm
…and yet no mention from bookman on Obozo’s vote not to raise the debt limit in 2006????
AJC – Sensationalism reporting at best.
Fred
June 30th, 2011
4:14 pm
This whole mess reminds me how them carpetbaggers were trying to ruin our good Southern Army right before the War of Northern Aggression………………. WHy them damn yankees needed our cotton and were trying to muscle into the production end so they up and………..
(does that help Josef?)
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
4:15 pm
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
4:05 pm
I’m doing good Dusty,thank you. Oh,and we wear camo underwear under our sheets!
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:15 pm
DBCOOPER: It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills
More of a sign that we don’t really WANT to pay our bills, not that we CAN’T. I suppose that’s just as bad, or worse…
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:17 pm
Regarding THE ADOLESIDENT (from National Review):
“And while the president insists that failing to meet the August 2 debt-limit deadline would unleash a train of calamities not seen since the Book of Job, he seems to be willing to risk them all in order to enact a set of tax increases that would yield largely trivial sums of revenue and whose only plausible justification could be the political appeal of envy.
There were other characteristically disconcerting moments too. There was the familiar insistence that everything about his administration is unprecedented. The president said, for instance:
What I have done — and this is unprecedented, by the way; no administration has done this before — is I’ve said to each agency, “Don’t just look at current regulations or don’t just look at future regulations, regulations that we’re proposing. Let’s go backwards and look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don’t make sense, let’s get rid of them.”
But of course, lots of presidents have thought of this particularly easy way to appear to be fighting bureaucracy. As the GAO has noted, “Every president since President Carter has directed agencies to evaluate or reconsider existing regulations.”
There was the unwillingness to speak of victory in an ongoing war. There was the shamelessly cynical treatment of the gay-marriage question (“I’ll keep on giving you the same answer until I give you a different one, all right? And that won’t be today,” the president said.) ”
It’s obvious, isn’t it, that our adolescent-in-charge will not be running on his own record next year. Given this perspective, one wonders if he won’t pull an LBJ and bow out gracefully–as I would, if the results of my job were so utterly abyssmal.
I don’t think he will because he is just too out of touch with reality, too infatuated with his own past press–’YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!. Too bad for him, governing requires more than senseless slogans and demagoguery.
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
4:17 pm
Ok now I know how this works, when Bush runs up a deficit it’s horrible for the country, when Obama runs up a deficit it’s FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE.
Dang Mike,sure took you long enough! LMAO
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
What does 30 years of Reaganomics give you?
Here’s what it gives you:
“Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans — 400 — have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.” – Michael Moore
Reagan = rigor mortis of an empire that’s running out of ideas
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
“You can either back up your claims or not…your choice.”
I do back up my claims, Keep, but I’m tired of doing so because you’re too damned dense to remember them. So when I make a NEW point, I’ll continue to back it up.
When I reiterate an old point, I shall no longer repeat what has already been posted for links. That is YOUR problem, not mine, Keep.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
Doggone…the ranking system is intriguing but I suspect would only continue to drive the single issue orientated candidate.
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
Adam — “Joe Mama: OOOO Excel sheet! That means I can make my own charts!”
If you like that, then bookmark the page, because just below what I pointed you at is this:
Spreadsheets for Selected Estimates and Projections
A collection of historical CBO data, arranged by category. These spreadsheets are not continuously updated, but rather are a reflection of CBO’s estimates, assumptions, and projections at the time the associated publication was released.
If my first link got you excited, then I suspect you will make a squealing, gurgling noise when you go to that other page.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:19 pm
LWM, the only time Michael Moore can count to 400 is when he’s on his bathroom scale.
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
4:20 pm
Adam, it is little more than a giveaway to the Insurance industry and big pharma.
Who not only endorsed this legislation, who helped write it? The giant drug and health insurance industries.The very same organizations that are now in control of healthcare.
In addition there are still loopholes for insurance companies that would allow them not to pay on some pre-existing conditions.
Obama even promised to continue the prohibition on Uncle Sam from bargaining for volume discounts on drugs that you the taxpayer have been paying for in the drug benefit program enacted in 2003.
But the Washington weasels really aren’t concerned very much – if this goofball legislation messes up rather than improves our debacle of a healthcare system, they’ll still be all set with their gold plated plan.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
4:21 pm
doggone…i like that solution. I think that would make elections a lot fairer and would actually allow a 3rd party candidate to content to an extent. I thhink that report would be very interesting to read.
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:21 pm
Logical Dude:
“Since I don’t see many people posting solutions, here is a suggestion”
Nice suggestion, but the Republicans ARE offering solutions. Jay’s not, Obama’s not, and even the President’s budget INCREASED the deficit–and got not one vote in Congress.
I salute your suggestion, but the real long-term solution must first contemplate ridding ourselves of the adolescent in chief, who seems to care nothing for acknowledging realities, who in fact, seems to have not the slightest sign of recognizing the danger of debt and default himself, who can only destroy conservatives but is inadequate to help the nation.
josef
June 30th, 2011
4:21 pm
Left wing…
Forewarned is forearmed as they say!
Peter
June 30th, 2011
4:21 pm
WOODSTOCK MIKE …. yup the Wall Mart example was what you wanted me to see.
The CEOs are still making too much, so tax them.
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
demagoguery
Show of hands: how many conservatives, before Ryan started using the term, knew what this term meant?
John Galt
June 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
Off topic but….
From Audacity of Hope:
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:23 pm
“DAVE
I’m trying, Son, but I can’t do it alone!”
josef, I think Jay knows we want one, but he’s merely being contrary. Doesn’t want to be so predictable, you know . . .
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
4:23 pm
why Dave, you presume I am here and reading your every post every day. Do you have a tracking system to know who has read your post or who was actually here at the time. I dont speak for all but I know that there are times that I am on conference calls, out of office, or only loosely monitoring here so rather presumptive assumption on your part.
Your presumption of your importance greatly exceeds reality but I bet it works well during your leadership classes at Yerkes
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
4:23 pm
Woodstock Mike: The point is that if you eliminated the CEO’s pay completely and divided it out amongst the employees it makes almost no difference to anything.
I think the issue is that you can hire 20 EXTRA PEOPLE for the price of the CEO – and still keep the CEO if the CEO got a reasonable paycheck. Yes, when you dilute the pay over the hundreds or thousands in the company, then it comes up small, but if the same funds can be used to strengthen what the business does, then putting all the funds on the top does a disservice to the company.
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 30th, 2011
4:24 pm
Looks like Michael Moore left something out… This is a global issue, not a United States problem..
“World’s richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers”
Peter
June 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
Why don’t we go to a consuming flat rate tax ? The CEO’s would hate that.or maybe not ?
Would all their toys still be paid for, and taxed in the same way ?
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
Adam — “That sounds quite interesting! Is there a name for the study or the people who did it so I can look it up?”
This is not the voting method Doggone spoke of, but it is one of several interesting alternatives I have read about in recent years. I think you will probably be able to Wikisurf around to other, related alternative voting methodologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
Well, logical dude said NO MO MONKEY business. You better tell Yerkes. They dun lost one and I think she is here. There are several suspects. No names mentioned of course. But U NO WHO THEY ARE!!
——————–
Hush yo mouth, Real Scooter. I bet you were not supposed to TELL.
josef
June 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
FRED
We’re getting there!
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:25 pm
AmVet: Agreed on all points. I think though that if the discussion would move to fixing those aspects of it, things would get better.
Which reminds me, whatever happened to Repeal and Replace? They passed a repeal bill in the House, it outright failed in the Senate, and then NOTHING. I thought they were going to tear it apart piece by piece next, and then replace it with something? What happened?
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
Moore is one of those guys whose instincts were (are?) good and who has done much good, but in reality his own stardom sank him.
And he became nothing more than Court Jester and Head Sycophant for the Democratic Party…
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
AmVet @ 4:20,
“They” will be set with their gold-plated plan?
I’m both saddened and amused by your non-logic here, AmVet.
Our fiscal house is burning down essentially, and you’re worried that you’re not getting your fair share, or that someone else is getting too much.
That’s just not the way mature adults behave. Reality is reality. Comparing yourself to others obsessively can only lead to heartache. Besides, Obama has already proven beyond doubt that he can make the rich richer as the poor get poorer–or worse: STAY UNEMPLOYED. Even as Obama basks in the occasional glow of a rising stock market at times, he refuses to acknowledge that the use of food stamps and umemployment payments are at all time highs.
Go ahead, win your arguments concerning your own envy. I’m waiting for you to see that as you argue about someone else’s portion in the dining car that the train is going off the cliff. Greece anyone?
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
4:27 pm
Buck: the President’s budget INCREASED the deficit–and got not one vote in Congress.
So let me see Congress’ budget that doesn’t increase the deficit
Even Ryan’s budget increased the deficit. Unfortunately, this is the reality: We will go deeper in debt before we can turn this truck around. It’ll take huge steps and it’ll take long term incremental steps. Your dumping blame on just the president does a disservice to yourself.
What are your solutions?
Adam
June 30th, 2011
4:27 pm
Ok, since I am looking at all this at work, I now have to put a note for myself to load this page and go back over the posts involving the spreadsheets and voting systems. Lots of data to look at!
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:27 pm
“why Dave, you presume I am here and reading your every post every day. ”
‘Cause you constantly try to drag me into your sorry arguments?
josef
June 30th, 2011
4:28 pm
DAVE
The Imam Torquemada predictable? Nyanh…never…bite your tongue!
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:28 pm
Adam @ 4:22,
If we didn’t know the term prior to 2008, we sure learned it then–anyone remember “bitter clingers” and “gold-plated healthcare plans”?
Scott
June 30th, 2011
4:28 pm
Logical Dude. I agree with your thoughts on that. I am not against raising taxes as long as it will not result in an economic slowdown(which I think will occur right now if they were raised) and if it means that it will lead to this country staying great. I am just against raising taxes without making significant cuts to some excessive spending. We just let the government spend spend spend without ever truly questioning why they are spending like they are. I am also against raising taxes to help pay others that made terrible decision with their money or with their lives. I think it sucks that taxpayers money was made available to help people restructure their mortgage because they tried to get more than they could afford or because they were making a risky investment. I made risky investments during the dot com bust. Why didn’t I get a handout. Another example….The government spending something like 40 million dollars to get convicted felons back to work. I am sorry but how about we concentrate on the law-abiding citizens first and then help those people that made poor decisions in the past. It is just not fair and that money is not spent wisely.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 30th, 2011
4:29 pm
Repeal and replace? I think the Republicans found out that the American Public liked many provisions of ACA and actually wanted more (single payor for example) and that attacking provisions like preexisitng condition restraints would have about the same effect as the Ryan Plan to destroy Medicare as we know it.
Left wing management
June 30th, 2011
4:29 pm
“Looks like Michael Moore left something out… This is a global issue, not a United States problem..”
I certainly agree, Woody. And just what economic ideology has dominated the world economy for the last 30 – 40 years, starting with Pinochet in Chile, under the pseud-intellectual aegis of the “Chicago Boys”, and then continuing under Reagan and Thatcher, and even including the so-called “Third Way” solutions of the Bill Clintons and Tony Blairs?
John Galt
June 30th, 2011
4:30 pm
Someone explain to me how, when two parties are at loggerheads and neither will budge, one is holding the other hostage? This is true only if the “victims” are admittedly weaker and inferior.
If the dems think that not raising the debt ceiling is dangerous, offer some spending cuts.
Or shut up and stop demagoguing.
In all sincerity, I can’t tell whether Obama is unintelligent or simply in over his head. Either way, when you combine them with his arrogance it must be hard to watch, if you are a supporter, though I know they won’t admit it.
The only thing I can compare it to from my perspective was Reagan’s performance in the Iran-Contra hearings. I have since learned that the man, my hero, was in the early stages of Alzheimers. Has Obama had a thorough physical exam lately?
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
4:30 pm
Woodstock Mike: “World’s richest 1% own 40% of all wealth, UN report discovers”
So, since they got all da money, they should pay da taxes.
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:30 pm
“And just what economic ideology has dominated the world economy for the last 30 – 40 years, starting with Pinochet in Chile, under the pseud-intellectual aegis of the “Chicago Boys”, and then continuing under Reagan and Thatcher, and even including the so-called “Third Way” solutions of the Bill Clintons and Tony Blairs?”
Tax and Spend?
josef
June 30th, 2011
4:31 pm
WHOOP! DERE IT IS!!!!
Going upstairs…
Dave R.
June 30th, 2011
4:31 pm
“In all sincerity, I can’t tell whether Obama is unintelligent or simply in over his head.”
He can be both, you know.
Real Scooter
June 30th, 2011
4:32 pm
I knew you were the only one that could hear me Dusty!
Joe Mama
June 30th, 2011
4:32 pm
Peter — “Why don’t we go to a consuming flat rate tax ? The CEO’s would hate that.or maybe not ?
Would all their toys still be paid for, and taxed in the same way ?”
The only way I could support a broad-based consumption tax of any sort is one that *completely exempted* necessities from taxation. That means food, clothing, utilities like power and water, medical expenses and the like. I also think that some sort of abatement or reduction should be applied to rent or mortgage (on a first home ONLY), on a single family vehicle or on mass transit expenses.
If you want a second car or a vacation home, then pony up.
buck@gon
June 30th, 2011
4:33 pm
Logical dude:
From FactCheck,
“Ryan says his plan would not increase the debt. In fact, under his plan the public debt would increase from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021, by his own figures. That’s a slower increase than under President Barack Obama’s budget, but the debt would still rise substantially.
He says his plan would “bring deficits below $1 trillion immediately, ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits.” True — but just barely. The 2012 deficit in his plan would be $995 billion, just shy of $1 trillion. It would drop to about $700 billion by 2013 — but that’s what the president’s budget projects, too.”
I don’t know if you are lying to me or are conflating, as Bookman often does with the facts. The recent deficits have been in the 1.5 – 1.6 trillion dollar range. Reducing the deficit to a trillion or so, IS an actual decrease of $500 billion.
Yes, we know that the national debt would continue to rise. This IS a solution should you care to notice it. It is a mild solution (I prefer Rand Paul’s myself), but even Obama won’t come off the golf course to discuss it. He will instead send Biden to do his naysaying for him.
Guy over there
June 30th, 2011
4:33 pm
ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!!!!!!
Geithner to Consider Leaving Treasury After Debt Debate
Keep on defending this awful administration, Jay!
AmVet
June 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
buck, go back and sit at the kids table. Where fact-free posts are the rule.
The adults are trying to discuss ACA, etc…
Dusty
June 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
LOGICAL DUDE
But da rich do pay da taxes! A whole heap of ‘em! You got the itch for a bit of wealth yourself?
Hmmmmmmmm
June 30th, 2011
4:35 pm
The utter madness of not raising the debt…… Spoken by someone who has never seen a Tax increase he didn’t like…. Unless of course the tax increase was Republican in origination… Pathetic…
Logical Dude
June 30th, 2011
4:36 pm
Scott: I am just against raising taxes without making significant cuts to some excessive spending.
I understand your thinking. But reality shows that we need to do everything we can right now. Some of the spending cuts can be done now, and the taxes can be done now. Some spending cannot be touched this year, so it can take a while to cut everything that needs cutting.
You mention a few specifics, but each of those has a certain value to society as a whole. Also with Tax breaks, each of the tax breaks had a reason and would also give value to society as a whole. EVERYTHING must be reviewed. Many tax breaks will be easy to remove, but other tax breaks will be hard. I don’t want to give up my Mortgage deduction, but if it’ll help the country in the long run, that’s one of the sacrifices needed.
Because in the long run, we still want a viable country wth a AAA rating. If we don’t, then the whole country suffers EVEN WORSE than if a taxes were raised.
John Galt
June 30th, 2011
4:36 pm
Dave R.-
He is definitely both.
I haven’t follwed this blog today, but it looks as though a lot of perople who hate capitalism and have accepted a life of mediocricy have chosen to be jealous of and attack the successful rather than have ambition them selves.
It would be amusing if they were not dangerous when they are herded together and vote.
Peter
June 30th, 2011
4:37 pm
Hey Joe Mama…I can see food….but all your “necessities” gas, water, power has to have a tax on it to make feasible..but that is am opinion.
Scott
June 30th, 2011
4:38 pm
Peter. I am for eliminating income tax and installing a consumption tax but you run into a couple issues. Who is going to ensure it is being doing right? That would probably entail even more government intervention in businesses as they have to monitor all of their records. Second, this might end up leading to a barter system to avoid the taxes. The buyer gives the seller something in exchange for something else and neither exchange involved money. A flat tax across the board would probably be better.