Boehner’s smart move on debt ceiling, spending cuts
The House Republicans have been setting the terms of the budget debate ever since Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled his “Path to Prosperity,” and now they’ve upped the ante. In a speech in New York City, Speaker John Boehner said any increase in the federal government’s debt limit must be accompanied by even larger spending cuts:
Without significant spending cuts and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority the President is given.
A few thoughts on why this is good policy and good politics:
First, it’s good policy because a “clean bill” to raise the debt ceiling, as the Obama administration wants, would be disastrous policy. Congress has proven that the mere requirement to raise the ceiling is not a sufficient restraint. And it’s become clear that the 2012 budget is not going to produce a grand bargain. If there’s going to be a compromise that begins to apply some semblance of fiscal discipline to Washington, the debt ceiling is the time for it.
Second, it’s good policy because a more-cuts-than-new-authority approach is perhaps the only way to put teeth into the restraint side of the compromise. In an editorial, The Wall Street Journal reports that Boehner’s advisers say “those cuts would have to be scored as real by the Congressional Budget Office over a five-year budget window.” This is hardly Draconian: A debt-ceiling increase of $2 trillion through the end of fiscal 2012 — which the White House says is necessary to keep the government running until Oct. 1, 2012 — would mean spending cuts of $2 trillion over five years, or $400 billion a year. In fact, it comes closer to being too weak a proposal given the severity of our debt problem. A $400 billion cut this year could still leave us with an annual budget deficit approaching $1 trillion.
Third, it’s good politics because it shows the House GOP learned a thing or two from its negotiations over the budget for the remainder of fiscal 2011. Note the part of the above quote about “scored as real by the Congressional Budget Office.” Republicans got burned when the $38 billion in 2011 budget cuts turned out to be more like $352 million this year — just 1 percent as much as advertised. The cuts can’t consist of programs that were already discontinued or mere reductions from what President Obama has requested for 2012. They need to be taken from real spending levels this year.
Fourth, it’s good politics because it’s common sense. Opinion polls (see question 10 in this recent one, for example) show Americans strongly disagree with raising the debt ceiling in the first place. So, raising it at all is an act of compromise with taxpayers. The price of the compromise is a pledge to spend less taxpayer money in the future. It’s kind of like the terms of a loan: If you want to borrow $10,000 today, you have to promise to repay that $10,000 with interest in the future. (Although, as I noted above, the fact that borrowing would remain high means Washington is still acting like the loan shark in this situation.)
Finally, it’s good policy and good politics because it sets a precedent in which cutting spending is necessary. That’s good policy because our problem will spiral out of control otherwise. And it’s good politics because, as others have noted before, we need a system in which politicians compete to spend less of our money, not more.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
205 comments Add your comment
Hillbilly Deluxe
May 10th, 2011
9:57 am
This is a good idea, in my opinion. Many times over the years, we’ve been through much the same thing. What usually happened before is that they raised taxes but the spending cuts never materialize. WHen it’s all said and done, thet’ll raise the debt ceiling, it’s just a matter of what kind of deal is cut.
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
10:02 am
Kyle, I don’t disagree with much of what you have to say here. But, would you please tell your readers, honestly, that if the USA were to default on its Treasury bond, notes, and and bills what that will mean for their investments, savings, home values, etc. My position is the American public has very little or no understanding of what a US default would do to the stock, bond, and real estate markets. And the politicians who believe a default won’t have an impact are either delusional or just plain stupid. Let me just say, they (investments of all kinds) won’t increase in value. If you can refute may statement have at it.
Halftrack
May 10th, 2011
10:16 am
Kyle; They need to do something that is significant and substantial. Citizens like the old service station add “pay me now or pay me a lot more later”, is what the Nation is facing. The late part is very disasterous to all our welfare. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. It’s now time to begin our cuts.
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
10:21 am
retiredds: I won’t refute your statement. That said, failing to raise the debt ceiling does not necessarily mean defaulting on the debt. We take in far more money in tax revenue each year than we owe in interest payments. So, even without raising the debt ceiling, Washington could avoid default.
Would that maneuver cause pain of its own? Of course. I’m just pointing out that there are options.
Dirty Dawg
May 10th, 2011
10:38 am
Hey Kyle, you simpleton. Your argument about not defaulting on debt is the same one that that brilliant financial expert Sarah Palin offered about this, or was it Bachmann…either way it’s idiotic.
The problem isn’t default it’s how the ‘good faith and credit’ of the US will be viewed by the rest of the financial world…and what price we’ll pay for that…and what reaction the financial markets will have. Sure we’ll still have money coming in, but everything will cost more – interest rates you know ‘ and whatever passes for recovery momentum will be lost…hell, for all we know, the sky will fall. Jerk!
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
10:43 am
And if we are still meeting our obligations on our debt, we’ll still be upholding the full faith and credit of the government.
You haven’t offered an explanation to the contrary.
aldol
May 10th, 2011
10:46 am
Boehner the “weeper” will certainly not be audacious enough nor aggressive enough.
This struggle over the debt will continue for years until the democrats will self destruct with their economically disruptive policies. It is a fact that the democratic party today is not JFK’s party, it is a concoction of special interests, bough for with taxpayers money. As taxpayers cut the money, there will be less and less of what they need to purchase the mercenaries. Hence the implosion. It may take a few more years but it is inevitable
DannyX
May 10th, 2011
10:55 am
Question 14 from the same poll,
“14. Based on what you have read or heard about the discussions between Congress and Barack Obama on the debt ceiling, do you think the Republicans in Congress have or have not acted responsibly?
34% said YES
60% said NO
retired early
May 10th, 2011
10:58 am
I am all for eliminating the deficit over time, but this is not the time. The “debt commission’s” bipartisan recommendations should be the plan to lead the way, not the GOP strategy to “NEVER” allow tax increases, thereby requiring budget cuts alone, to balance the budget…that old Grover Norquest idea of “shrinking government to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub”. When one looks back to the Bush years, where two wars were unfunded…when a tax cut costing 2 trillion over a decade now was not “offset” by budget cuts as Boehner is now demanding and when a 500 billion dollar medicaid drug bill was unfunded…one has to believe the deficit was the GOP’s “last priority. Now that Obama is President, Boehner is suddenly becoming “fiscally responsible”.
Remember…Boehner, Cantor and company were all in the House during those Bush years, so the word that comes to my mind, Kyle, is “hypocrite”…not the words you have used to describe the Speaker. How else can you describe their actions.
Again, I am all for cutting whatever is necessary…and…eliminating the tax cuts as well, to realistically attempt to balance the budget….not just use this most” current crisis” to make “political hay” as Boehner is doing, at the risk of bankrupting this country.
You see a hero…I see a man who is “Party first, Country Second”.
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
11:00 am
So my question is: if the US doesn’t default by paying interest on its security obligations, what doesn’t get paid? And this is what also needs to be put out there for the American people to see. I think you will agree it is not just as simple as saying, “well, we are saving the ‘good faith and credit’ of the US. There ain’t no free lunch.
I have an idea, how about they (the Congress) don’t pay into their retirement funds or their well funded medical and retirement benefits packages.
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
11:03 am
Retire early: I tend to agree with you about the deficit/debt commission. But the Republicans can’t go with that because it would be an Obama program and we all know that the Republicans have been and will do everything (including lie, steal, and beg) to make Obama a one-term president. Therefore the party of “no” will continue to supply us with their obstructionist and failed economic panaceas.
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
11:04 am
retiredds @ 11:00: That’s the $400 billion question. As I said before, there would be pain, just of a different sort.
I think we both know congressional retirement and medical plans don’t cost $400 billion a year.
Cutty
May 10th, 2011
11:12 am
You may be meeting your obligations, but the stock market would go into a tizzy. The market rises and falls if someone in Iraq farts the wrong way. To think that there wouldn’t be significant damage to the economy if we ‘technically’ defaulted is laughable. The Bush administration raised the debt ceiling 7 times, matching spending cuts from these same group if GOP leaders was nonexistent. Until military spending, and yes modest tax increases, are put in the table this is mere politics.
Name one business in a financial bind that only cuts spending, and doesn’t look at all of ways to increase revenue?
retired early
May 10th, 2011
11:23 am
retiredds
Anything that gives Obama credit is automatically opposed by the GOP. You saw that when Obama embraced the GOP bill promoting small business loans only to have them pull their support once he was on board. The term “Party, First Country Second”, perfectly describes the current GOP leadership.
I can only imagine what this country would look like after 8 more years of GOP control. Georgia is headed back to the “old South” under the same GOP mindset, let’s hope voters finally see thru the “smoke screen” that keeps them voting against “their own best interest”.
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
11:33 am
Cutty: Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve.
yuzeyurbrane
May 10th, 2011
11:34 am
Kyle, where did you and Boehner get your degrees in economics. No reputable economist (that, by definition excludes the paid hacks at the Heritage Foundation) sees any economic sense at all in risking the full faith and credit of the U.S. for a cheap political stunt. If you don’t like the policies of this govt. then introduce legis. on the merits and take a vote. You and your buds prefer to extort the rest of us because you know you would lose any debate on the merits. For one reason, you are too ignorant about economics to even understand what the merits are.
Logical Dude
May 10th, 2011
11:35 am
Kyle: And if we are still meeting our obligations on our debt, we’ll still be upholding the full faith and credit of the government.
You are (for some unexplained reason) brushing off the threat of “the full faith and credit of the government” by saying we can pay the debt. Oh sure, we can pay the debt if we ignore much of the current spending.
What 25% of the government spending would YOU choose to stop paying in order to pay the debt?
And when you stop paying 25% of the government spending, watch how quickly the economy grinds to a halt anyway. 25% of the government out of work, 25% of sub-contractors to the contractors etc etc etc.
Come on now. Give us a real idea of the consequences. Don’t brush it off sounding like it’s “just a little pain”.
Road Scholar
May 10th, 2011
11:41 am
Boehmer was asked on Today what evidence did he have that the tax cuts for the rich had on the deficit and economy.
Crickets…
Boehmer changed the subject! And the interviewer let it go. Matt Lauer needs to grow a pair!
JohnnyReb
May 10th, 2011
11:42 am
Kyle, good article. Please only drink bottled water while at the AJC offices. Something there turns people Left; be on guard.
retired early
May 10th, 2011
11:45 am
Kyle
Since you are on board here praising the Speaker, please tell me how you rationalize the contradiction of his having approved the numerous unfunded budget increases during the Bush years…not mandating budget cuts to “offset” those same increases…and now his “line in the sand” demand for “offsetting” budget cuts to reduce the debt ceiling. He went along 7 times under Bush without objection. Please explain how this is somehow “different”.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
11:45 am
“Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve.”
Lets start with the Airlines..
Next we will move to the Oil companies..
The Big banks are another ….
Kyle, Do I really need to continue???
Swami Dave
May 10th, 2011
12:01 pm
retired early:
America does not have a problem of too-little revenues; America has a problem of too many dependents expecting to live off those revenues instead of providing for themselves. There is no reason to increase taxes. That idea has been merged with all of the other historical “deficit reduction compromises” (read: scams) that have been done in the past few years.
Tax increases occur immediately – spending cuts promised for the “out-years” never to materialize. The dependency class continually clamouring for ever-increasing programs and transfer payments funded by the confiscated wealth of America’s taxpayers.
Respectfully, no more!
Honestly, I would support Boehner and the Republicans compromise on a requirement for 50% of the debt ceiling increase to be offset by real spending cuts in discretionary spending IN THE CURRENT BUDGET YEAR! I’d accept half of the spending cuts in exchange for the likelihood that they are actually REAL and not promised like fantasy land in the future (awaiting either removal by or outright refusal to carry out by future Congresses).
Net-Net: We have a spending problem and the way you resolve a spending problem is quit spending. Our spending problem is too many Americans expecting others to fund their lifestyles and decisions instead of providing for themselves.
Freedom and Opportunity work every time they are tried; they work when you do!
-SD
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
12:02 pm
Logical Dude: 25 percent of “government spending”? How much do you think we spend on debt service?
The president’s 2012 budget proposal calls for net interest payments of $242 billion out of total spending of more than $3.7 trillion. That’s 6.5 percent of “government spending.”
Maybe you meant only discretionary spending — meaning entitlements aren’t touched. If so, we’re talking about nearly 18 percent. I never called that “just a little pain,” your mischaracterization notwithstanding. But anyway, let’s not forget that the president’s budget takes stimulus-level spending and bakes it into the budgetary cake; he’s proposing a budget for 2012 that is more than $700 billion above the pre-stimulus (i.e., FY 2008) budget.
Where is it all going? Here are some broad categories: $23 billion more for Energy; $9 billion more for Natural Resources and the Environment; $27 billion more for Transportation; $2 billion more for Community and Regional Development; $35 billion more for International Affairs; $5 billion more for General Science, Space and Technology; $11 billion more for Administration of Justice; $11 billion more for General Government.
Right there, that’s $123 billion in *increases* from FY 2008. That’s before we even have to talk about reducing what we were spending just four years ago, and before we touch defense or entitlements.
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
12:04 pm
Kyle, you are right there would be pain. But my position is this: not one Republican will tell the American people just where that pain will be felt (my guess is they don’t know because the ideology clouds the particulars). If a politician, Republican or Democrat, says that there will be minimal impact from a default, they are either ignorant of fiscal and economic dynamics, and the dynamics of the global markets for stocks and bonds (gold would probably go over $2,000/ounce, or they would be willing to wing it as happened under the Bush adminsitration, i.e. VP Cheney saying that deficits don’t matter and much of the two wars being run off budget so the American people couldn’t see the economic and fiscal impact, and cutting taxes while trying to fund the two wars (economics 101 tells us that doesn’t work).
And, quite frankly, if the Republicans tell the American people that deficits and debt can be done only on the expense side of the ledger, they are either fools or liars. It can’t happen, and, Kyle, you know that too.
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
12:04 pm
Painful Truth: You don’t think people fly less when airlines raise prices, have been driving less with gas prices higher, etc.? Or that an individual airline doesn’t lose customers when it raises its fares…and so on?
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
12:12 pm
Anyway…all this default talk has gotten us off-topic a bit. The real question before us is whether Boehner’s plan for accommodating our borrowing needs — by cutting spending to equal increases in the debt ceiling — is better than the Obama/Democratic plan of “just raise it, baby.”
Swami Dave
May 10th, 2011
12:13 pm
Painful Truth:
You dont have to fly. You dont have to drive. You can keep your money in cash in your mattress. Those sound like choices – albeit ones that -I- dont want to make. However, they are a choice that you have. There is no force requiring you to buy their products or use their service.
Noone will show up at your house if you refuse to schedule a flight on Delta and pay $250 for the ticket.
They put you in jail or confiscate what you own if you choose not to pay your taxes. In the case of Government, you are required to FUND their products and services at whatever level that they assess based on the fact that you exist. They have the full force of the government to enforce your compliance.
I guess that you should continue because you have yet to make an accurate comparison that answers Kyle’s challenge of identifying a business that can “raise revenue” at will forcing you to buy it (i.e. mandating compliance).
Thanks for playing.
Truth, History, and Common Sense refute Liberalism!
-SD
Michael
May 10th, 2011
12:16 pm
How come the current democratic president must fix what it took about fifty years of government largesse to break? By the way, don’t raise the debt limit because I love chaos. I tire of stories of gloom and doom and just want to see, realize and feel it. Break this country down into its component parts with states, counties and cities competing against one another for taxpayers and industries. Our final steps towards becoming that third world country where we have an oligarchic rich class with a sham representative governing body.
For Real
May 10th, 2011
12:20 pm
Kyle, you are answering a question with a question.
Mike
May 10th, 2011
12:22 pm
Boehner is a idiot. He is own by big oil companies. All he knows is how to cry and he is good at time. Kyle, if you want to write about something, write about all the jobs that Boehner promised when the Republicans took control of the house. As I am typing this post, the Republicans have been in control of the house for 125 days, 11 hours and 19 minutes and they still haven’t come up with a jobs bill.
For Real
May 10th, 2011
12:22 pm
“Anyway…all this default talk has gotten us off-topic a bit. The real question before us is whether Boehner’s plan for accommodating our borrowing needs — by cutting spending to equal increases in the debt ceiling — is better than the Obama/Democratic plan of “just raise it, baby.” – Okay, you are right we are slightly off topic. However, retiredds’s 11:45 question about how Boehner’s current plan meshes with the 7 times Boehner raised the ceiling without any cuts.
JRev
May 10th, 2011
12:22 pm
Apparently it’s OK to explode the debt ceiling as long as a Republican is President, as far as the GOP is concerned. Our debt soared under Bush and the GOP did nothing. No proof has been given to back up the assertion that keeping taxes low for the richest Americans benefits our economy in any way. If we get rid of the Bush tax cuts, we will be much closer to the road to recovery. But, the GOP doesn’t want to admit this. This is not economics Kyle; it is politics. The GOP are hedging their bets that they can win votes through this sham, and they might just do it. America will be much worse off if we continue these tax cuts for the rich.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:22 pm
The debt ceiling should be raised just enough so that we get to have this debate again just prior to the 2012 election.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
12:23 pm
Come on Kyle..thats not what you intial question was…You are doing a pretty good Boehner immitation dancing around youu own question. Your question was ” Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve.”
Add to the list….
Sony
Apple
All of the major Drug companies…
Do I need to continue….
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
12:27 pm
Would you need to raise the debt ceiling if the Rs would have let the Bush tax cuts expire when it was time to in the first place? I see nothing wrong with cutting spending but I also see fault in refusing to let those tax cuts expire. Technically that’s not a tax increase in my opinion when they have an expiration date attached. It was a tax break that has run its course.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:29 pm
Yes, you need to continue because none of the businesses you named can force people to purchase their products.
Try again.
George P. Burdell
May 10th, 2011
12:30 pm
Kyle:
You make a great point that I think politicians on both sides are trying to gloss over. Namely, all the future budgets have just baked the nearly 18% one time increase from 2008 to 2009. Why long term that is accepted as a normal adjustment in spending is ludicrous. I think it plainly illustrates that even combining debt ceiling increases to spending cuts as proposed may not be enough. At least that level would get us close to increasing expenditures from 2008 levels at the same rate revenues have increased historically. I don’t think this stands a chance politically but at least they are having the discussion.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
12:32 pm
Again, Swami Dave, That was not the question…His challenge was to name a business that can increase revenue (Raise prices) regardless of whether its customers agree…. Not to you point, You are right…Juvenille, but right, as a business person, I wont go to jail if I dont fly, but I also cant effectively do my job if I dont. And yeah, we can all ride bicycles instead of driving cars, but tell me, where would our economy be then??? And in case you forgot, look back about 3 years and see what happens when the fall short short…. But alas..that might mean actually having to admit that they top down idea will only serve to crush the supports that hold it up….
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
12:37 pm
Bailout boy…See my 12:32…
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
12:38 pm
Kyle, it is not “just raise it baby” that is the Democratic position. The position is to have a clean passage and take up the budget deficit and debt issues on a parallel track. Let’s face it it has taken the US many decades to run up the debt, and it will take many decades to reduce it (I hope to zero). We had a great opportunity following the Clinton years and it was blown to bits in a very short time. Think of it if Bush and his cronies had continued the fiscal path we were on. In the year 2000 the conversation was that the debt might be paid off in 10 years if the same rate of surpluses could be continued. What a wasted opportunity. And by whom, did your Republicans say no to the change of direction in deficit spending or the debt. NO, they waited until Obama was elected and then went on a tear. Kyle, since that time I do not trust anything the Republicans tell us. Their hypocrisy is more than monumental. The R’s tell us that all Democrats want to do is “tax and spend”. Well, all the Republicans wanted to do was “borrow and spend”. The latter is worse in my mind because the debt service on the borrowing has now become a huge part of the debt.
My position has been that I don’t think the Congress is capable of doing this right. They are too beholden to their voting bases, special interest groups, and those who have the means to purchase meaningful time with their legislatures. I think the ideology driven politics will continue to be the demise of any constructive and beneficial reform. Don’t forget all empires ended because of decay within.
JIM
May 10th, 2011
12:40 pm
Swami Dave
How about utilities, they raise their rates without your approval. Of course you don’t have to use them and they won’t put you in jail if you refuse to pay but try telling your wife and kids they will have to do witout airconditioning this summeer when it’s 95 degrees outside. It’s easy to throw out extreme scenerios but you know as well as i do that there are some things that are necessities that it would not be concidered illegal if you choose not to purchase them.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:44 pm
Try again, PT, because your earlier attempts failed.
JustWondering
May 10th, 2011
12:45 pm
Kyle,
This comment, and later questions, does expand some on your question. Generally, every household, business, organization and governmental body has both revenues and expenditures (other than in bankruptcy). In 2001, the Federal Tax Table for MFJ has a top tax rate of 39.1%. An individual with income of $372,950 would face federal income taxes of $117,867. On the 2009 Tax Rate Schedule,the top rate is 35% and the same person with taxable income of $372,950 would pay $100,895. All the rates are lower in 2009 than in 2001. In addition, there are tons of adjustments and tax credits that have also been added to the IRC. In discussion about the annual deficits and the current debt ceiling, what happened to all the growth in federal revenue predicted when these cuts were put in place? Second question regards proposed cuts in spending being considered. What segments of the US population will be most ‘impacted’ by the cuts? Will it retired persons, young couples starting a family, corporate CEO’s, middle management, blue collar workers, professional athletes, etc.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:46 pm
The Democrat position is to continue punting so they can continue their Idiot Messiah’s un-American spending spree.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:48 pm
What segments of the US population will be most ‘impacted’ by the cuts?
——–
The segment that demands that others pay their bills for them.
scrappy
May 10th, 2011
12:48 pm
Only thing I agree with is, Yes, this is good politics.
The R’s want the debt ceiling increase just as much as the D’s, and they too know (or are just plain stupid) that the consequences on the market would be horrific. But this way they get to create talking points and shout out to their base about how fiscally responsible they are trying to be, but the those darn democratics just won’t let them.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
12:50 pm
Kyle’s 11:33 question – did you just ask this to be mean or really want an answer because you don’t know of any? Here’s one, Southern Company.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
12:52 pm
The debt ceiling has zero impact on “the market”. Not increasing it would only impact current holders of US debt, and that’s only if your Idiot Messiah stiffs them, instead of cutting off the parasite class from their handouts.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
12:52 pm
Bailout boy…The segment that demands that others pay their bills for them.
yeah..Like Boeing, Or KBR, or Lockeheed-Martin,
scrappy
May 10th, 2011
12:53 pm
“Democratic plan of “just raise it, baby.””
As opposed to the Repub plans:
just spend it, baby
just invade it, baby
just cut taxes, baby
just cuz I say it, its true, baby
Swami Dave
May 10th, 2011
12:53 pm
Painful Truth:
Kyle’s question was: “Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve.”
Your lists that “satisfy” his challenge (now to include Sony, Apple, & Drug manufacturers) to not address his question apparently based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the differentiation between revenue and price.
All of the businesses you listed could arbitrarily raise their PRICE without regard to the wishes or approval of their customers. Since that customer base has the choice of whether or not to purchase those now-higher priced goods, they are guaranteed no increase in REVENUE. We have a choice of whether to accept a price increase and continue purchasing the goods. There may be an inflexibility to price based on what we WANT, but that is a choice to cede to our wants and enable that constraint.
In the case of government, no such freedom or choice exists. They can increase rates and use the full police powers (to imprison or confiscate) to force your compliance.
Kyle’s challenge remains unanswered because as with most philosophical tenets of Liberalism, they have no grounding in history or fact. It is a lie predicated on theft acquiring political power via jealousy.
-SD
JIM
May 10th, 2011
12:53 pm
Barry
You’re right, no private business can force you to purchase their products. HAPPY NOW, YOU TWIT. Now you can call the cable guy, ga power, and the water company and tell them you refuse to pay their prices and see what happens. After they turn everything off you can move out to the middle of nowhere and live off the land and we won’t have to read your idiotic post anymore.
George P. Burdell
May 10th, 2011
12:54 pm
Southern Company doesn’t operate in a free market system. They have to go through a regulatory process and then a government entity tells them what their revenues can be. It is in no way a good answer for the question being answered. If you think so, what other type of business actually has a process where customers can provide commentary on what the pricing model should be and have it taken into consideration by the entity that ultimately decides what the price will be?
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
12:54 pm
Does LBB even know what they are talking about or just like seeing themselves post?
The segment that wants taxpayers to pay their bills? You mean the rich people that get farm subsidies because they have hundreds of acres of land and put a cow on it to avoid property taxes?
Or poor people that don’t even come close to getting the amount of tax money in their lifetime a rich person will recieve in one year?
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
12:55 pm
Painful Truth…you are right on the money…The Oil companies are doing it now, as are the Drug companies…but here is another thought…if you trust that boner’s stance will work…and that the all of a sudden come to Jesus Republicans have been anointed with a bit of common sense in the last few months..why is it that the Debt has risen on average way more under republican presidents than under Democratic presidents? I also want to hear some answers from you righty’s to the question about why boner and the misfits thought it was ok under Bush but now all of a sudden all the reasons that made it ok are not valid now that we have a Dem in the presidency? I for one don’t trust any of them, but especially those that are clearly hypocritical….by the way… Boner and his posse don’t have the guts to stop raising the debt limit…I say call their bluff..and let the public decide who is right…
John
May 10th, 2011
12:57 pm
Noticed at the same time Boehner said tax increases for the wealthy are off the table and Republicans are looking to filibuster a Senate proposal to take away the subsidies to the big oil companies. These people talk about “the free market” but then give huge subsidies to the world’s most profitable corporations. Republicans are just Robin Hoods in reverse…taking away from the poor and working class to give to the wealthy.
Swami Dave
May 10th, 2011
12:58 pm
To those now suggesting utility companies, nope.
You (and “your wife and kids”) may not WANT to spend a summer without air conditioning, but you have the choice to do so. Again, the choice may be “inflexible”, but it is not compulsory.
Still unanswered, but good try……
-SD
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
12:59 pm
bailout boy….Ok..Now go sit in the corner…This conversation is reserved for adults…
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
12:59 pm
So Southern Company has been denied rate increases they ask for by the PSC?
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
1:05 pm
To use Swami Daves Logic…All the top 1 to 3% has to do to keep from paying higher taxes is to stop taking 7 figure paychecks…after all, Going to work and making those huge salaries is a choice…right????
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:08 pm
This is the question: Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve.
Southern Company may have to ask to raise rates but they don’t get denied very often, if ever, and I as a ‘customer’ do not approve of getting charged now for unbuilt nuclear reactors, yet I still have to have electricity. Those that say I don’t have to buy are just being retards because yes I do. I have to have the internet as well. HAVE TO HAVE IT. This is how work gets done. Therefore I must pay what is asked of me whether I like it or not. Same goes for gas and especially food. Try not buying food, I have a garden but that’s not going to cut it year round and for everything. There’s not much room in the yard for cows and chickens.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
1:10 pm
Sorry PT, but those companies only demand payment for goods or services provided. The parasite class, on the other hand, mainly provides us with crime and more mouths to feed.
Try again.
quick work break
May 10th, 2011
1:11 pm
I would like to see a model of the estimated increase in unemployment as a cascading result from these massive proposed cuts. That needs to be brought to light as a side effect of these negotiated measures.
Michael
May 10th, 2011
1:12 pm
The question of what private company can raise prices blah, blah, blah, is just a trick question. It’s rhetoric, talking points, etc. Let it go.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
1:14 pm
Now you can call the cable guy, ga power, and the water company and tell them you refuse to pay their prices
———
Why? I like their products and am happy to pay for them.
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
1:16 pm
Lil Barry: You are correct, for now, that the debt ceiling has no impact on the markets. You can make that statement because there has not been a time when the debt ceiling was not raised, under either the Democrats or Republicans. If the debt ceiling is not raised I think you will see an impact and I think it will be largely negative. But we will have to wait and see, won’t we. It is really fun to be on the cusp of history.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:18 pm
LLB and his parasite class, you sure these people are getting billions in subsidies and tax money that will bankrupt the country?
I saw some freeloader stossel episode (he didn’t leave out the rich like you do) however, he did include a guy begging for change. How exactly is this guy freeloading? So some guy asked him to work for money but he said no, he makes more begging. That is not freeloading, no one has to give the guy change and I sure as hell don’t see droves of people running out to be homeless. False argument to claim poor people freeload. Do you know how much money people get in food stamps? That is a lifetime, LIFETIME, that they will not recieve as much tax payer money as rich people get in one year, yet you continue to live in fanasty land where Ds sponsor poor people at the detriment of the country yet Rs sponsor rich people for the good of the country. Sure.
George P. Burdell
May 10th, 2011
1:19 pm
onpatroll,
you also always have the option of purchasing a generator system and producing your own electricity from gas, solar, wind, etc. You have options other than Georgia Power. You may not like them, but you do have options.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
1:25 pm
The beggar isn’t using the power of government to confiscate other people’s property. The parasites who vote Democrat are.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
1:28 pm
onpatroll, do tell us about all the government handouts rich people are getting.
Ayn Rant
May 10th, 2011
1:29 pm
Usual bit of political nonsense! Both the Democrat and Republican “plans” for deficit reduction require trillions of dollars more deficit spending over the next several years. Why not just raise the debt ceiling, and get on with budgeting for the next fiscal year?
What’s the sense of quibbling over deficit percentages without identifying specific (unpopular)spending cuts? Why cause financial havoc by delaying the inevitable?
The politicians are pandering to the conflicting wishes of the American public: deficit reduction and tax cuts, but no cuts in current programs, and even more aid to the jobless and the poor.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:29 pm
George the question was “Name one business that can increase revenue at will, regardless of whether its “customers” approve”.
customer options doesn’t matter. There are options sure but the keywords are ‘increase revenue’ with ‘customers approval’. Tons of componies raise rates, prices, whatever to increase revenue without using ‘customer approval’ as a litmus test before increasing revenue. So stuff customers don’t even know about like taking a can of 12oz beans and reducing it to 10.5oz and charging the same price. Laying off workers and increasing the hours of other workers.
but whatever, 12:15p is right anyway, done
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
1:32 pm
Last time I checked we were not allowed to negotiate drug prices.. oh wait under the ongoing stupid argument,, I guess you don’t have to take the drug, you can just die.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:34 pm
onpatroll, do tell us about all the government handouts rich people are getting.
lets see, on stossel, bon jovi pays 2000 in property taxes on hundreds of acres because of a few cows (i hope you know he is not a farmer) while his neighbors pay 6000/acre without cows.
look up florida crystals. they make sugar in the everglades. they get paid by the govt. a guaranteed price on sugar (this make them millionaires) that they make by destorying wetlands that our govt spend millions more on to rehab. also look at oil companies, boeing, etc etc.
George P. Burdell
May 10th, 2011
1:34 pm
If you truly think companies raise prices/reduce product without thinking about the impact on customers and potential revenues, then we are done. There is no sense trying to make a logical argument if that is what you truly believe happens in the business world every day.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:38 pm
companies raise prices/reduce product without thinking about the impact on customers and potential revenues, then we are done
oh yeah, they lose tons of sleep worrying about the impact on customers.
onpatroll
May 10th, 2011
1:45 pm
the only evidence I have seen concerning customers is resturants not wanting to raise menu prices based on the elevated food prices.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
1:52 pm
We have a SPENDING problem in Washington! Regardless of political party in the White House & in congress, regardless of the increases & decreases in marginal tax rates over the years, the public debt has increased EVERY single solitary year since 1948!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
If ALL of us paid 50% or 75% in taxes, DC would spend it & borrow more. It’s NEVER enough!
The debt ceiling was raised 10/28/10 by $1.9 T to the current $14.3 T. It’s only been 18 months!
What we need more than spending cuts is spending reforms. I’ll furnish the straight jackets if I get some volunteers to tie the knots.
carlosgvv
May 10th, 2011
1:52 pm
If this were an honest policy difference between Republicans and Democrats, that would be acceptable. In reality, it is Boehner being nothing more than a mouthpiece for his corporate sponsors. They know that every dollar cut from Medicare and Social Security is another dollar they get in tax breaks and other perks. Selfishness and greed are in the saddle and will ride us all into the ground.
Swami Dave
May 10th, 2011
1:55 pm
Cablerat:
You do have the option to request a reduced or free drug from the companies. The companies have the option to agree or refuse.
However, in the same fashion that plantation owners of the 1700-1800’s were wrong when they utilized the labors and productions of others to pick their cotton based on their “need” for help, it would be equally wrong to expect (or elect bureaucrats to mandate that) an individual or company provide you with so drug that you need.
Likewise, it is wrong to elect bureaucrats to confiscate wealth from producers to provide benefits and services that you cant (or wont) provide for yourself. That is called theft whether done with a gun or legislation.
-SD
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
1:58 pm
Nowhere in this entire article is the word “revenue” used.
How can you talk about a budget problem without talking about revenue?
and that’s only if your Idiot Messiah stiffs them, instead of cutting off the parasite class from their handouts.
I wholeheartedly agree! Cut off the parasite class of Wall Street robber barons (the Jamie Dimons and Llolyd Blankfeins) and other big corporate welfare recipients. Adding to Truth’s list, let’s not forget corporate welfare parasites like Archer Daniels Midlands and Aetna, Wellpoint, et al. Not to even mention those parasitic tax freeloaders GE, with their net negative tax burden. Freeloading moochers.
Mike
May 10th, 2011
2:01 pm
If Boehner is actually sincere about spending cuts, why not start with ending oil and gas tax breaks for the big oil companies?
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
2:03 pm
Swami, so in plain english…you love the fact the drug companies set prices, raise them etc…and then use the profits to make sure there is no competition…I am all for a company producing a product and selling it on the open market, I am not for anyone interfering with market or competition to favor that product. Come on stop making the same stupid argument you know makes no sense, I guess I should have know better than to argue with a republican, common sense doesn’t factor into the conversation.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
2:10 pm
How can you talk about a budget problem without talking about revenue?
——–
Easy. By focusing on the root cause–obscene spending by you un-American Idiot Messiah Obozo.
Tech Man
May 10th, 2011
2:10 pm
I’ll believe it when I see it and not before.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
2:11 pm
The Democrats/liberals/progressives/non-taxpayers clamor that raising taxes will solve all our problems. Congratulations!
Obama’s budget raises taxes by $1.6 T over 10 years. He proposes spending every cent of them & adding another $9.47 T to the national debt over 10 years, according to the CBO. (Obama’s estimate was a rosy $7.2 T.)
The national debt was $10.025 T when Obama was elected. It’s now at almost $14.3 T & he proposes adding another $9.47 T. This is historic. Proposing a debt of $23.8 T should scare the living daylights out of any American. He gets the prize for the president who proposed to more than DOUBLE the national debt.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
2:14 pm
Bailout boy..So are you gonna ever admit that the spending problem in congress is the fault of both parties, or are you gonna let you hate for the POTUS continue to fester and rot inside of your gut???
Linda
May 10th, 2011
2:22 pm
In my 2:11 comment, I meant to include this link to Obama’s budget:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-white-house-budget-would-not-add/
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
2:24 pm
Linda, he proposed doing in…Both Bush 43 and Reagan DID IT!!!
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
2:26 pm
But I forget…they were “traditional” Presidents..All this deficit talk did not apply to them…. ( I wonder why……)
John
May 10th, 2011
2:28 pm
“Easy. By focusing on the root cause–obscene spending by you un-American Idiot Messiah Obozo.”
What obscene spending? Oh, the bailouts…started under George Bush (remember John Boehner crying on the house floor begging for it’s passage), giving tax breaks while fighting 2 wars not paid for. Is that the spending you’re talking about?
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
2:30 pm
Cutty: They weren’t moderated. You posted them on the wrong thread.
Moderate Line
May 10th, 2011
2:34 pm
Chinese officials have made clear in recent weeks they are closely monitoring U.S. efforts to shore up its finances and prevent a future debt crisis that could hurt China’s investment.
“We hope that the United States in its fiscal cleanup will be able to adopt effective measures based on President Obama’s proposal,” Chinese Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao told reporters in Beijing on Friday, according to published accounts.
Brookings Institution scholar Eswar Prasad predicted Friday that during this week’s meetings, the Chinese will put “tough questions” to the U.S. about the possibility of a default on the debt, if Congress refuses to raise the nation’s debt ceiling in the coming months.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/160127-obama-boehner-joust-for-credibility-on-debt?page=2#comments
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
2:36 pm
Easy. By focusing on the root cause–obscene spending by you un-American Idiot Messiah Obozo.
Root cause runaway spending?
Nahh. Not with top hedge fund managers pulling in $1B paydays.
Why should one of those top hedge fund managers get to exploit more revenue-gutting loopholes, so they can afford to buy 700,000 yachts this year instead of just 200,000 this year with all that money. Nah, they won’t miss it. But Joe middle class Sixpack with his bypass and 2 wk hospital stay that might bankrupt him bec. of a lame-a$$ excuse for a health insurance system? He’ll miss it. So we need the higher revenues – and hence more taxes – to pay for necessities, like Joe Middle Class’s bypass.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
2:38 pm
Painful@2:24,Who proposed doing in? Don’t understand you comment.
Painful& & John, Let me reiterate what I’ve already said. The US govt. has had a spending problem for decades! All presidents & congresses have added to the debt since 1948. What is at issue is the magnitude of the debt. Trillions are more than billions, which are more than millions.
John, you can’t spend tax breaks. The govt. can not spend my money that I earn, that am lawfully entitled to & that they are not. Keeping my money does not cost the govt. a dime.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
2:45 pm
There are those “other” problems with the debt. Japan can’t buy any more of our debt. PIMCO has already sold off all of our debt. China probably will not buy any more of our debt. The Fed. Reserve is to stop printing money out of thin air in June. If real investors buy our debt, interest rates will increase significantly. That will make the housing market even worse, as well as the overall economy.
S&P has already gives the US an unsatisfactory rating on our debt, not on our ability to PAY our debt, but on the magnitude of it.
We are in for hard times.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
2:45 pm
Linda, You said Prez Obama proposed doubling the debt..I said Both Reagan and Bush 43 actually DID that…Where were you when the Repubilcans were in the White house??? Why were you not screaming mad then???
Uncle Billy
May 10th, 2011
2:45 pm
Since the US Treasury is able to borrow money now at record low levels there seems to be no problem of its not being able to finance the deficit in the future. Also, cutting spending in the midst of a very weak economy can cause unfortunate surprises on the revenue side as the British Conservative government has discovered. What we need to do to reduce the budget deficit is induce more economic growth which would automatically reduce some spending (unemployment, food stamps, Medicaid etc.) and increase revenues. Long term budget control depends almost entirely on controlling the costs of medical care.
quick work break
May 10th, 2011
2:45 pm
Linda: Instead of saying “spending” tax breaks, we could easily say “wasting” tax breaks. It’s an opportunity cost. When you look at the amount of billions (trillions?) over time from the beginning of the Bush tax breaks, the scope of that wasted opportunity is enormous.
I would propose terminating the Bush tax breaks and ensuring those funds ONLY go to paying down the debt, so that people can wrongly assume Congress will just spend it.
quick work break
May 10th, 2011
2:47 pm
*can’t* wrongly assume…
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
2:48 pm
Linda: “Democrats/liberals/progressives/non-taxpayers”
You’re doing quite a lot of lumping there, Linda, aren’t you?
Democrats = liberals = progressives ? Hmm. I think the US history books might have something to say about that. Just what is a “liberal” anyway?
And as to non-taxpayers, what do you say about non-taxpayers (net tax benefactors) like GE? That’ doesn’t bother you?
If people making good money are getting tired of paying more of their income in taxes, tough. They need to get busy making real change to spread the opportunities they benefit from to a wider swath of the society.
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
2:49 pm
Linda,
I just find it funny that you say the government can’t spend your money that you are “lawfully” entitled to….I could swear taxes were lawful…
And I also would like to thank you for using politifact as a reference…that means It is now available for use on both sides.
John
May 10th, 2011
2:56 pm
“John, you can’t spend tax breaks. The govt. can not spend my money that I earn, that am lawfully entitled to & that they are not. Keeping my money does not cost the govt. a dime.”
What money are you referring to that the govt. can not spend that’s yours?
You keep bringing up debt since 1948 and that it’s a spending problem. Below is the tax rate for married filing jointly in 1948. Taxes have been cut and cut creating less revenue…perhaps that’s, at least, part of the problem?
Year $10,001 $20,001 $60,001 $100,001 $250,001
1948 38% 56% 78% 89% 91%
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
2:56 pm
Linda: “We are in for hard times.”
But not the top hedge fund managers pulling in $1bil in revenues in a single year. No hard times for them. Can you just wrap your mind around how much money that is? Just by closing tax loopholes and asking the small group of these earners to pay rates closer to what, say, Warren Buffet’s secretary pays (to use the famous example) alone would generate enough revenue to hire thousands of school teachers in states where the neoliberals like Scott Walker are trying to cut back.
So, don’t you think if we’re headed for “hard times” that we could start asking people who are pulling in spectacular sums to pay their share? Never mind “liberal” or “progressive”, don’t you think that’s reasonable, Linda, on just a “common sense” basis?
Linda
May 10th, 2011
2:58 pm
Painful@2:25, I posted the national debt figures from the US Tres. Dept from 1950-1999 in my 1:52 post. Here’s the national debt figures from Tres. from 2000-2010. Click on both & tell me when/what years Reagan & Bush 43 DOUBLED the natl. debt. Good luck!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
John
May 10th, 2011
3:01 pm
Great Job Republican House with your budget. As reported by the AP…
The House Republican budget would leave up to 44 million more low-income people uninsured as the federal government cuts states’ Medicaid funding by about one-third over the next 10 years, nonpartisan groups said in a report issued Tuesday.
The analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Urban Institute concluded that Medicaid’s role as the nation’s safety net health care program would be “significantly compromised … with no obvious alternative to take its place,” if the GOP budget is adopted.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
3:04 pm
But I forget…they were “traditional” Presidents..All this deficit talk did not apply to them…. ( I wonder why……)
———-
Because your Idiot Messiah is the only pResident to have run a trillion-dollar deficit, much less PROPOSE a decade’s worth of them.
Idiot Messiah: Epic failure.
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
3:04 pm
5.8in 2001 to 10.8 in 2008 isn’t exactly doubling but its pretty close.
I am actually pretty positive Bush signed the FY 09 budget in as well attributing him to the next year, but since I’m not sure…i’ll just stop at 2008.
John
May 10th, 2011
3:04 pm
Republican Mantra…
Tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate subsidies to the world’s most profitable corporations and cut medicaid leaving 44 million more low-income people uninsured.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
3:07 pm
John, Obozo could have CHANGEd all that…why didn’t he?
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
3:09 pm
Bailout boy…You have a crush on The POTUS dont you??? You are dead smack ass in the middle of a Presidential Wet Dream and cant seem to wake up!! LOL
retiredds
May 10th, 2011
3:10 pm
While we all deposit our thoughts here a little bit of history might be in the cards re: the debt ceiling.
“Well, like many things in life, the debt limit began as an effort to produce an effect different from the one it ended up creating. It started as a way to give Treasury officials more financial flexibility – not less.
A statutory limit on US indebtedness began in 1917, to help finance the US entry into World War I, according to a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on this subject. Before then, Congress had simply voted to approve specific acts of borrowing, such as the Panama Canal loan, or specific types of debt instruments.
Subsequent legislative acts gave the Treasury more and more leeway to raise cash as it saw fit, via 30-year bonds or whatever mix of terms and interest rates seemed to best fit the government’s needs.
But government just got more and more expensive. After World War II, the feds began bumping up against the debt ceiling. The problem turned acute by the early 1960s. Since March 1962, Congress has altered the debt ceiling limit 69 times.” (Christian Science Monitor)
How about that!! 69 times, wow.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
3:12 pm
quick@2:45, When have tax increases ever produced the expected tax revenues? How did JFK feel about the relationship between taxes & revenues? How do businesses who are not incorporated file their income taxes? How many economists in the real world (not in the classroom) recommend raising taxes during economic recessions? How many months should any taxpayer (morally) work for the fed. + state govt.? What happened to the unemployment rate after the Bush tax cuts? Who should decide how to spend our money: politicians or the actual earners of it? Who stimulates the economy the best: politicians or small business owners & consumers? Who should select the winners & losers: politicians or consumers?
Finally, if all the Bush tax cuts were to expire, how much would that increase revenue?
John
May 10th, 2011
3:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout, you called President Obama, un-American Idiot Messiah Obozo for the spending. When I called you out on it and showed much of this spending started with Bush, all you can say is “Obozo could have CHANGEd all that…why didn’t he?” Can’t defend your earlier statement, can you?
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
3:18 pm
John: There are 50 million people enrolled in Medicaid. Do you really believe that cutting funding by one-third will cause enrollment to shrink by 88 percent?
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
3:20 pm
Finally, if all the Bush tax cuts were to expire, how much would that increase revenue
4.1 Trillion dollars over 10 years
Linda
May 10th, 2011
3:22 pm
left@2:48, You & I both know what you are. You don’t have children & grandchildren, don’t plan to have children & grandchildren, or they did something that really made you mad.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
3:24 pm
stupid@2:29, If it was never taxed, it was MY money. Read the comment again.
John
May 10th, 2011
3:25 pm
Kyle: That’s the finding of 2 non-partisan groups. Like yourself, I didn’t do the study…I just reported it.
Kyle Wingfield
May 10th, 2011
3:27 pm
John: I understand. I’m just saying I’m skeptical. But I’ll have to find the report itself and give it a look.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
3:31 pm
Lil’ Bar: “Because your Idiot Messiah is the only pResident to have run a trillion-dollar deficit, much less PROPOSE a decade’s worth of them.”
One big reason he’s running larger deficits is the disaster of an economy he inherited, a disaster that in large part was the culmination of the misguided economic policies pursued in the past 4-5 presidencies.
And again, I don’t know why you keep mentioning “Idiot Messiah”. When did Paul Ryan come into this?
John
May 10th, 2011
3:32 pm
“Who stimulates the economy the best: politicians or small business owners & consumers? ”
When businesses stop spending money and layoff large numbers of employees as we’ve seen over the last couple of years and consumers stop spending money because they’ve either been laid off, had salary cuts or fear these will happen to them…who is left to stimulate the economy? Only the government is left.
John
May 10th, 2011
3:34 pm
Kyle…one report is posted on the Kaiser Family Foundation here…
http://www.kff.org/medicaid/8185.cfm
Linda
May 10th, 2011
3:39 pm
John@2:56, Are you serious? Are you implying that ALL the money I earn belongs to the govt.? After I pay my taxes, is it alright with you if I keep the rest & spend it as I please?
If you want to go all the way back to 1948 & look up tax rates, go right ahead. What I said was that the natl. debt has gone up every single year since then, regardless of the tax brackets, regardless of which party was in the White House & congress. Tax rates were as high as 90% when JFK came into office. In ‘63, he said, “…the paradoxical truth is that tax rates are too high & revenues are too low, & the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to lower taxes now.” When he cut taxes, revenues shot up from $94 B to $156 B by ‘68.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517
John
May 10th, 2011
3:40 pm
“You & I both know what you are. You don’t have children & grandchildren, don’t plan to have children & grandchildren, or they did something that really made you mad.”
Not sure what you’re implying, but I take it you don’t have children or grandchildren. If you do, how could you justify protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for the world’s most profitable corporations and at the same time call for spending cuts in education, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc (those programs that will probably benefit your children and grandchildren)?
John
May 10th, 2011
3:42 pm
“If it was never taxed, it was MY money. Read the comment again.”
Linda, if it was never taxed, then why are you giving extra money to the government and then complain about it?
JustWondering
May 10th, 2011
3:47 pm
John@3:32
Good Point. Our economy continues to struggle and inch its way forward. Where would we be if the government had reduced spending relative to the loss of income due to the recession?
Point to Linda:
Quoting from Bloomberg Businessweek online…
“Rhode Island will get $28 million in federal money to benefit high-speed train service, becoming one of 15 states sharing in $2 billion turned down by Florida’s governor for a rail project there”. For every state that turns down money,there are 15 wanting it. Suppose you are a member of congress. Would that send a message to you?
John
May 10th, 2011
3:47 pm
“Are you serious? Are you implying that ALL the money I earn belongs to the govt.? After I pay my taxes, is it alright with you if I keep the rest & spend it as I please?”
Guess I missed something…I never said or implied the tax rate should be 100% (which of course, would be ALL the money you earn). I don’t see where either I or the government has said you can’t spend it as you please (assuming it’s legal).
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
3:52 pm
Well put, John:
“Not sure what you’re implying, but I take it you don’t have children or grandchildren. If you do, how could you justify protecting tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for the world’s most profitable corporations and at the same time call for spending cuts in education, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc (those programs that will probably benefit your children and grandchildren)?”
Linda
May 10th, 2011
3:55 pm
leftt@2:56, I think it speaks volumes that the Democratic-controlled White House & congress did not even mention hedge funds in the financial overhall bill.
Excuse me, but I refuse to join in the class warfare. It’s un-Christian & unbecoming. We don’t have classes, only income brackets. I want everyone to prosper, do their best, make as much honest money as possible & be charitable.
The only thing that will bring us out of our financial indebtedness is using our own energy.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
4:01 pm
Linda, are you serious??? Since when is pointing out that one segment of our society is benefiting at the expense of everyone else, Class warefare??? Thast a lame cop-out and you know it….
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:06 pm
stupid@3:04, It was $10.0, not $10.8 T in ‘08. Bush added $4.4 T in 8 yrs.. Obama added $3.5 T in 2 yrs.
Painful Truth!
May 10th, 2011
4:13 pm
Linda, and Bush did not have the caost of either war on teh books…figure those cost and lets talk real numbers…
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:15 pm
John@3:32, It did not work. Look at where we are. Look at all dozen or so economic indicators. Go to the grocery store or buy gas. After all this govt. spending by Bush & Obama, we are worse off now than when they started. It has NEVER worked in the US or other countries. Europe is on an austerity kick. Canada just elected a huge majority of conservatives. All this spending did was cause more debt. The debt & all the new govt. regulations are preventing businesses from hiring. It’s a vicious cycle going in reverse.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
4:20 pm
Linda: “Excuse me, but I refuse to join in the class warfare. It’s un-Christian & unbecoming”
You don’t find just a hint of “class warfare” in the words: “What you do to the least of my children, you do unto me*.
“We don’t have classes, only income brackets. I want everyone to prosper, do their best, make as much honest money as possible & be charitable.”
We most certainly do have classes. There’s one class which can fairly accurately be defined as all those who would face destitution after missing 1-2 paychecks (working class), another one which might face it after say a year (middle classes), and then still another class of people who don’t even get paid in paychecks (real wealth). As F. Scott Fitzgerald said: the people in the 3rd group just ain’t like those in the first. It’s almost like they live on a different planet. That’s why we need radically progressive governance to reach up and pull their feet down and place them back on earth.
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
4:27 pm
Linda-
I could swear Bush signed the 09 budget in.
And how much of the deficit in 08,09, and 10 is contributable to a revenue drop?
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:27 pm
John@3:40, You are following the Democratic rhetoric. Do your math. Single people who make $200,000 per yr. make $800,000 less than a person who makes a million. Someone who makes a million dollars per year is not necessarily a millionaire. High income earners have to provide food, clothing & shelter just like the rest of us.
The more the fed. govt. spends on education, the lower the test scores & the higher the dropout rates. Show me proof that money improved education in the US or anywhere else in the world. I am in favor of shutting down the US Dept. of Education, using vouchers & eventually getting rid of public education.
I can almost guarantee you that my heirs will not need Medicaid. Medicare & social security are already bankrupt.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:30 pm
John@3:42, You sound like you have never paid taxes. I have never paid any money to the govt. that I did not owe in taxes.
John
May 10th, 2011
4:37 pm
“It did not work. Look at where we are. ”
How could you say it did not work? Unfortunately, we don’t have a crystal ball but can you imagine if the government didn’t act? How many more jobs would have been lost if the government, for instance, didn’t help the Chrysler and GM? Not only those working directly for Chrysler and GM but also those supplying parts to them. Looks like they’ve turned the corner…GM posting a pretty large profit. How many more foreclosures would there have been…bringing all home values even further down. There are 3 groups that spend…businesses, consumers and government. If all 3 groups stopped spending, where would we be today?
“The debt & all the new govt. regulations are preventing businesses from hiring.”
Businesses are posting profits and sitting on cash. Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell today reported first-quarter profit increases of 69 percent and 30 percent, respectively, from the same period last year. Where’s all the hiring due to trickle down economics ?
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
4:39 pm
Hey Linda…maybe you can talk your front runners for the Republican Pres nomination to running on that platform…please give it your best try…who are they Palin, Romney, and Trump…AKA…I quit, I’m Mitt, and I am full of sh&^.
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
4:40 pm
Forgot the Newtest entry to the Circus….good ole Gingerich…I bet he would bite on your platform..he doesn’t think supporting his kids is important either.
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
4:43 pm
Linda-
Someone who makes a million dollars per year is not necessarily a millionaire. High income earners have to provide food, clothing & shelter just like the rest of us.
Hold on…wait…how does someone who make(keyword) not a millionaire…and are you trying to force pity on someone who is considered a high income earner…so you want people to feel pity on someone who can only afford to clothes themselves in gucci or something…thats kind of a stretch there don’t you think.
John
May 10th, 2011
4:44 pm
“I am in favor of shutting down the US Dept. of Education, using vouchers & eventually getting rid of public education.”
So Linda, if you think we should get rid of public education, then tell me why should the federal government give out vouchers? Let’s get the government out of education altogether and let parents pay 100% of the costs to have their children educated. It would force competition in the private sector which will bring down cost of education; thereby making it affordable to everyone.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:44 pm
Just@3:47, I don’t think congress gets messages. The economic stimulus bill was passed less than 3 weeks after Obama was inaugurated. Compared to the estimate of $5 B in devastation in the South by the tornadoes, the bill was 172,000 times more expensive. That’s when the American people took to the streets. We spoke when the bluest seat in the Senate went to Scott Brown & again in Virgina & REALLY, REALLY loud in 11/10.
We are now screaming. Stop spending money we do not have for stuff we do not need.
What we need are some donations from Miracle Ear.
For what the Democrats spent on the economic stimulus bill, we could have rebuilt the South 172,000 times.
Chuck
May 10th, 2011
4:45 pm
Kyle, Little Barry, Linda, Boner, and other clueless partisans:
You jerks aren’t concerned with a real solution to our debt problem. Your goal is to spew fear, hate, and lies to gain Republican reelection. The talk of freeloaders, welfare queens, and deadbeats may be justified as wasteful spending but WON”T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. We need to raise taxes or cut spending. Smart people seem to agree that we need to do both.
John
May 10th, 2011
4:46 pm
“You sound like you have never paid taxes. I have never paid any money to the govt. that I did not owe in taxes.”
If you paid only the money you owe, then it’s the government’s money…not yours.
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
4:49 pm
John does make a great point. How in one sentence you want goverment out of education but in the next want vouchers.
John
May 10th, 2011
4:55 pm
“The economic stimulus bill was passed less than 3 weeks after Obama was inaugurated. ”
The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law on February 13, 2008.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
4:58 pm
Pain@4:01, Class has absolutely nothing to do with income. The lady who cleans my house does not make much money, but she has more class than many of the rich people I know.
When someone making $250,000 per year gives jobs, health care & profit sharing to 12 people, who is benefiting at the expense of whom? If the govt. raises taxes on the employer & he has to let one of his employees go, who is benefiting whom?
Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Pain@4:13, The wars might not have been in the budgets, but the debt reflects the difference between revenues & ALL expenses. What it does not include are unfunded liabilities. Have you even seen the debt clock?
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
5:01 pm
Linda: “Compared to the estimate of $5 B in devastation in the South by the tornadoes, the bill was 172,000 times more expensive. That’s when the American people took to the streets. We spoke when the bluest seat in the Senate went to Scott Brown & again in Virgina & REALLY, REALLY loud in 11/10.
We are now screaming. Stop spending money we do not have for stuff we do not need. ”
You know what, Linda, I think you’ve got real potential. With just maybe a quarter turn in your position I think we can have you properly “communized” and brought over into the light. You’re really working to figure this whole thing out — and that’s a good thing. More than a lot of people are doing.
Just a quarter turn is all we need for you to come into the light and see who your real enemies are and where the real tweaks need to be made to get this bollixed up mess of a capitalist system going in a new direction. Your anger is sincere. And not unjustified. We just need to get it turned around slightly and you’ll be wearing a red bandana before you know it. How do you look in red, by the way, Linda?
Some people are stupid
May 10th, 2011
5:02 pm
So a bill with a thrid ta cuts caused people to run to the street….well then, we probably shouldn’t cut taxes any further cause then we would have riots.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
5:03 pm
left@4:20, 1. No.
2. See my 4:58 comment. Class is something you either have or don’t have, not something you fit into.
John
May 10th, 2011
5:22 pm
Linda…perhaps you should use a dictionary. There are several meanings of the word class. You used the term class warfare in your earlier post then used a different definition of class in later posts to support your position.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
5:23 pm
John@4:37, You complained @ 3:04 & 3:40 about corporate subsidies & now you’re applauding corporate bailouts for GM & Chrysler.
If you were a bank, what would be the least risky loan to make? One to the fed. govt. on it’s good faith & credit, one to a small business owner with a signature or one to a home buyer when home prices have not yet hit rock bottom?
Exxon Mobile made 6% of its profits in the US. Most of its profits are made abroad. However, between ‘06 & ‘10, it paid $59 B in US taxes after earning only $40.5 B in the US. It pays more in US taxes than it earns in the US. The oil companies HAD hired but Obama shut them down in the Gulf. He’s not just preventing new jobs. He eliminated existing jobs.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
5:34 pm
stupid@4:43, Al Gore said that someone who made $250,000 four times was a millionaire. A firefighter married to a teacher making a total of $250,000 in NYC is likely living in a dump.
When Clinton raised taxes on luxury items, he learned that he caused people to loose jobs that were carpenters on yachts.
There was a meeting last week of some of the richest people in the US who are giving away millions & billions to charities. Where would we be had they not donated to our hospitals, universities, etc.?
Our prisons filled with greedy…hold on…wait…poor people.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
5:36 pm
Left wing management: One big reason he’s running larger deficits is the disaster of an economy he inherited
————————
Nonsense. Our President Bush fixed the financial collapse via TARP, and the recession ended in June of 2009.
The reason your Idiot Messiah is running a $1.5 trillion deficit every year is because he wants to. If he didn’t, he’d CHANGE something, like raising taxes or cuting spending. No, he extended the tax cuts for the wealthy AND increased spending on things like Medicare Part D.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
5:39 pm
John@4:45, School vouchers are not given out by the fed. govt. Many times the private school charges less than what it is costing the govt. school.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
5:42 pm
According to CNN, the two-year cost of the tax cuts for high earners will be about $75 billion, while the estimated cost of the cuts for incomes below $250,000 is about $310 billion, or four times larger.
——————-
Don’t let little things like facts get in the way of your libbtarded hatred for the productive class.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/do-tax-cuts-for-the-wealthy-create-jobs/67723/
Linda
May 10th, 2011
5:45 pm
Chuck@4:45, You are the first person today who has tried to insult me by calling me a name.
We won’t have a real solution to our debt problem until we have a Republican majority in the Senate & a Republican in the White House.
I will pray for you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
5:49 pm
That’s right, Linda. There is one party that is serious about fixing the deficit/debt problem. Republicans are doing the heavy lifting. Democrats are punting–they’re intent on continuing to spend us into disaster.
Democrats: America-haters.
John
May 10th, 2011
5:51 pm
Linda, there is a difference between corporate subsidies and the corporate bailouts. Subsidies are freely given year after year where the bailouts were a one time cash infusion to be paid back to the government.
As far as Exxon Mobil’s taxes…do a little more research than getting it from Exxon Mobile. According to CNN Money…
“To get to that number, the company includes the federal and state gasoline taxes that the company collects from drivers and passes on to government coffers. It also includes payroll taxes the company pays on behalf of its employees.”
So you see, Exxon Mobil doesn’t pay $18.5 B more than they earn in the US. It’s a smokescreen.
As far a Obama shutting them down in the Gulf…another falsehood. There was a temporary moratorium on deep water drilling. Over the past few months, over 200 drilling permits have been issued.
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 10th, 2011
5:53 pm
Yes, Linda, a single party calling all of the shots works so well. As a matter of fact, let’s do away with this silly two-party nonsense and become a Dominant Party System.
Would you be a dear and bring me some crumbs that the “Productives” have tossed my way?
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
5:53 pm
We won’t have a real solution to our debt problem until we have a Republican majority in the Senate & a Republican in the White House.
I will pray for you….are you drinking, not listening, or listening to Rush the Drug addict? I think we all see what happened the last time that scenario played out…we went from balanced budget to debt that we are still trying to get our arms around…no thanks…I prefer not to do the same thing and expect a different result…
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 10th, 2011
5:56 pm
But it is curious that the Republicans have taken such a vested interest in the debt ceiling. Not a word of it was mentioned for a solid decade under Bush.
But keep on being distracted by the phrase/hot topic du jour. It wasn’t too long ago when “unions” was the phrase/hot topic du jour.
John
May 10th, 2011
5:58 pm
“School vouchers are not given out by the fed. govt.”
Linda, where does the money come from to cover the vouchers? Both federal and local governments finance education…which comes from taxpayers.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
5:58 pm
The facts are that the GOP is working to cut spending, reduce Obozo’s deficit, and slow the growth of the debt, while Democrats are saying “no” to any attempt to slow the growth of their vote-buying, er, spending programs.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
5:58 pm
Linda:
Well then, I think you’re just flat wrong. A man who ransacks the tables of the moneychangers is a man who sounds to me like a strong candidate for “class warrior” under the current right wing demagogic definition as anyone who dares point out the very fact of a lopsided wealth distribution.
Your comment “class is something you either have or don’t have” confirms something I’ve suspected for a long time: conservativism as currently practiced amounts to a wholesale rejection of the entire field of sociology, which is a bit peculiar considering the roots the field has in the area of political economy, e.g. Adam Smith, etc.. I can guarantee you one thing, Adam Smith, often cited as patron saint of the capitalists, would not have denied the existence of social and economic classes.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
6:00 pm
That’s true, we do have a class system. The two classes are called “makers” and “takers”.
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
6:03 pm
Mary, I think it is clear…the republicans would rather have us focus on the looney issues, like birth certificates, buying a generator instead of power from you power company…you know real meat an potatoes things…instead of answering my question on what presidents ran the highest deficits over history…what party were they from…why was it ok to raise the debt ceiling 7 times in 8 years and now all of a sudden it is important…we all know the answers…because the facts get in the way of a good story…like I said before, if all you republicans really believe this crap you are spewing out…write your politicians and demand they run their next elections on them…please…also make sure you add the part about not raising the debt ceiling…I dare you…bet not one of them gutless wonders takes you up on it…but if they do, please accept my appreciation now…
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
6:05 pm
Cablerat: what presidents ran the highest deficits over history…what party were they from
———————-
Obozo. Democrat.
Ask something more difficult.
John
May 10th, 2011
6:05 pm
“The facts are that the GOP is working to cut spending, reduce Obozo’s deficit, and slow the growth of the debt, while Democrats are saying “no” to any attempt to slow the growth of their vote-buying, er, spending programs.”
Lil’ Barry Bailout, what Democrats are saying spending cuts are off the table? Democrats are saying we need spending cuts along with raising taxes on the wealthy who could afford it and get rid of the oil subsidies..meaning spread the pain around to all. Republicans, on the other hand have said tax increases on the wealthy and getting rid of oil subsidies are off the table. Republicans believe only the working class and the poor should shoulder all the pain.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
6:08 pm
Lil’ Bar: “Nonsense. Our President Bush fixed the financial collapse via TARP, and the recession ended in June of 2009.”
Bush? Fixed something? Who knew.
The reason your Idiot Messiah is running a $1.5 trillion deficit every year is because he wants to.
You want to talk about a real “Idiot Messiah”? And one who’s never coming back, to boot? 30 years of failed economic policies in his name, a.k.a. Reaganomics, which even Bush Sr. had second thoughts way back in a moment of honesty. The result: today the widest income disparities since the eve of the Great Depression. Thanks, Gipper.
Don’t spend too much, Lil’ Bar, waiting for the Messiah to reappear, like so many of your fellow travelers. Things really weren’t all that great under the Gip.
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
6:09 pm
come on Lil Bit…do a little reading…do I need to point you in the right direction, or are you really going to try the bluffing game…man you republicans never learn….I’ll give you one more shot at it…do your research…
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
6:13 pm
John, do you know how much the oil subsidies are?
Sure, let’s get rid of them. That’ll cut $4 billion off Obozo’s $1.5 trillion deficit. After we do that, we can get serious about making some cuts that are more than sops to populist idiotarians.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
6:17 pm
Lil’ Bar: “Cablerat: what presidents ran the highest deficits over history…what party were they from”
You mean the ones your Idiot Messiah ran up in the 80s? They were the biggest ever seen, surely you realize? Oh, and on the matter of partisanship, wasn’t it a Democrat who gave us the first budget surpluses in decades in the late 90s, only to be squandered again a couple of years later by that tax cut flinging cowboy? Oh yeah, what party was he from? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Mary Margaret Thomlinson-Hanson
May 10th, 2011
6:20 pm
4 billion is a step in the right direction, Lil Barry? But instead, you would rather disregard that?
Linda
May 10th, 2011
6:21 pm
John@4:46, We hashed this around too much today. We have been paying our taxes per the tax rates established by congress in ‘01 & ‘03, at which time there was cuts. Tax decreases/cuts did not add to Washington spending. Washington can only spend the revenue it collects & money it borrows. It can not spend my net earnings.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
6:21 pm
The largest deficit in history: $1.4 trillion
Year: 2009
pResident: Obozo
You’re welcome.
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
6:30 pm
Jeesh…you make it easy Ll Bit…here is the part you need to answer my question correctly in case you dont want to actually read the article..I need to warn you, there are facts in there….
t might be useful to first put the current deficit in some historical perspective. You may be surprised to learn that since World War II the federal budget has only been balanced 12 times. President Truman balanced it three times immediately after the war. Presidents Eisenhower and Clinton each did it three times, as well. Presidents Nixon and George H.W. Bush had balanced budgets in the first year of their presidencies. Truman is the only president since the war who averaged balancing the budget for his term in office, producing budgets with an average surplus of 1.15 percent of gross domestic product. Reagan was the worst, averaging deficits of 4.2 percent. Overall, Democratic administrations, prior to President Obama, have averaged deficits of .7 percent of GDP while Republicans averaged deficits of 2.3 percent. While Congress and the economic conditions certainly affect the presidents’ ability to manage the federal budget, it is interesting that the record does not support the generally held notion that Republicans are deficit hawks and Democrats are spendthrifts.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/king/7550818.html
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
6:32 pm
No need to thank me..
Linda
May 10th, 2011
6:36 pm
John@4:55, Yes, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law on 2/13/08 WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT & was tax cuts. The Economic Stimulus Act that cost almost a TRILLION DOLLARS was signed by Obama 2/17/09. How can you get a bucket of water & the ocean mixed up? Do you have no idea why the American people are so upset? Did you not notice that it was THIS BILL that started the Tea Parties with the American people ON FIRE?
Linda
May 10th, 2011
6:39 pm
left@5:01, May you join OBL.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
6:56 pm
John@5:22, I know what I said & am unwavering. I said, “…I refuse to join in the class warfare. It’s un-Christian & unbecoming. We don’t have classes, only income brackets…”
How would you feel if you were considered poor & someone said, “Poor John, it must be awful to be low class,” or “Poor John, what a shame you are in the poor class,” or “Low Class John, I bet you are green with envy that you are not in the elite class over at the country club or that political class up there in Washington, DC?”
There is no place in society for this class warfare the Democrats are trying to wage.
Class has to do with up-bringing & conduct, not money.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
7:02 pm
Sorry, cablerat, but your Idiot Messiah’s deficit is about 11% of GDP. Kinda makes our President Reagan’s meager 4.2% look downright sensible, eh?
Idiot Messiah: Worst ever.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
7:04 pm
What cablerat left out from his own link:
“Overall, we have averaged running a deficit of 1.62 percent of GDP each year. Prior to last year, the worst deficit was in 1983 at 6 percent. The deficits in the first two years of the Obama administration have been 10 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively, and the projected deficit for this fiscal year is 10.9 percent. So the current deficits are truly unprecedented for this country.”
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
7:05 pm
“Sorry, cablerat, but your Idiot Messiah’s deficit is about 11% of GDP. Kinda makes our President Reagan’s meager 4.2% look downright sensible, eh?”
No, your Idiot Messiah unleashed a gusher of red ink in the 80s that was only reversed in the late 90s under Bill Clinton.
So, I agree. Idiot Messiah : fail. May we get on with burying the corpse of Reagonomics once and for all.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
7:10 pm
The Obozo Misery Index:
9% unemployment + 11% deficit
John
May 10th, 2011
7:10 pm
Linda, you failed to mention TARP…signed on October 3, 2008 by who? President George W. Bush. This is what started the bailouts…but of course, Republicans tend to rewrite history and never mention Bush with respect to bailouts.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
7:11 pm
Actually, we should call it the Obozo Incompetence Index.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
7:25 pm
TARP will likely be repaid in full or turn a profit. Yes, signed by President George W. Bush. Fixed the financial meltdown caused by Democrats not paying their mortgages. The recession then ended in June 2009.
Yawn.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
7:29 pm
John@5:51, So it’s okay to bail out corporations once but not more than once? Haven’t we bailed out Chrysler before? Why did Obama not let them declare bankruptcy & then bail them out? Why did he throw the stockholders (including my retired neighbor) under the bus? If Democrats oppose subsidies, why didn’t they end them when they had the majority?
As far as subsidies to energy companies, do you think it’s fair to end them for oil & gas & continue giving them to Obama’s buddies for this green debacle?
If there was just a temporary shutdown in the Gulf, why did the:
Ocean Endeavor go to Egypt
Ocean Confidence go to the Republic of Congo
Marianas go to Nigeria
Discoverer Americas to Egypt
Ensco 8503 to French Guiana
Deep Ocean Ascenion to the Mediterranean Sea &
Clyde Boudreaux to Brazil?
And why is a federal judge in LA holding the Obama adm. in contempt of court after ordering permits to be accepted 3 times?
Do you only read the corrupt main stream media?
Linda
May 10th, 2011
7:36 pm
Miss MMTH@5:53, There have been 3 times in my life when there have been a Democratic president & Democratic-controlled congress, but this is the first time when all 3 were controlled by progressives. See the difference?
@5:56, Yes, you are right. S&P didn’t warn us about the debt until 2 weeks ago after it was CLEAR that Obama had no intention of lowering the debt & had every intention of blowing it thru the ceiling.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
7:53 pm
Cablerat@5:52, If Clinton had a balanced budget, what happened? Why did his adm. add to the national debt every year that he was in office, according to the Treasury Dept. site I posted on this blog today?
You are still blaming Bush. Have you bothered to read any of the 3 reports from the commission that Obama appointed to study the cause of the economic crisis? Sure, Bush had some blame, but the root cause of the economic crisis happened in the ’90’s.
BTW, you are only the second person who has tried to insult me on this blog today. I will pray for you.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
7:57 pm
John@5:58, I repeat what I said.
@7:10, I was against TARP. Bush should not have signed it. It was a LOAN & most has been repayed.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
8:04 pm
left@5:58, Again, may you join OBL, & I didn’t mean after his “waterboarding” experience. I meant in his ultimate destination. That’s ladylike for …
Progressives & terrorists are both trying to destroy America.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
8:27 pm
Cablerat@6:30, What difference does it make whether the fed. budget is balanced or not if the debt is still increased at the end of the year? Do you understand that budgets are merely projections made in advance & that they can be totally off kilter at the end of the fiscal year, depending on the events during the fiscal year? Do you understand that there has not been one single solitary year since 1948 that the national debt has not increased? You seem to be drowning in history when the urgent crisis is how to tackle both the current budget deficits & the looming debt crisis. No one cares what president did what since WWII. We have a president today who is in denial.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
8:41 pm
Cablerat thinks stealing the Social Security surplus is a legitimate way to balance the budget. That’s how Clinton did it. As Linda correctly points out, the national debt increased every year of the Clinton andministration. There was no surplus, libbtards.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
8:44 pm
Lil’ Bar: “Fixed the financial meltdown caused by Democrats not paying their mortgages”
You really think all the people filling up the many cookie-cutter developments that sprung up across the nation largely powered by such loans were all Democrats, Lar? Some of the states with high concentrations of SPLs, Miss, Texas, Florida, Utah, last I checked, weren’t necessarily blue hotbeds, huh Lar?
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
8:57 pm
No, I think that all the people who didn’t pay their mortgages are Democrats. Many good Republican folk also purchased homes in cookie-cutter developments, but they pay their bills.
Left wing management
May 10th, 2011
9:22 pm
No, I think that all the people who didn’t pay their mortgages are Democrats. Many good Republican folk also purchased homes in cookie-cutter developments, but they pay their bills.
And with a chuckle, I’m tuning out for the evening.
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
9:35 pm
200 FIRST!
Lil' Barry Bailout
May 10th, 2011
9:56 pm
Obozo’s deficit is $1500 billion, and the Democrats think they can fix that by eliminating $4 billion in oil company tax credits. If you’re stupid enough to believe that, I guess you’re stupid enough to vote for Obozo.
Linda
May 10th, 2011
10:17 pm
Lil’, Obama’s deficit is over $1 T, $1.65 T!
Cablerat
May 10th, 2011
11:19 pm
Linda, and Lil Bit…you guys married, if not you should be…that way you could find your way out of the house together..Linda. come on with the praying bit..it didnlt work for you all back in 08, it isnlt working here….Lil Boy err bit…and Linda….what was it they said…. if you don’t learn from the past you are doomed to repeat it…Little Bush inherited a surplus, him and his band of face shooting misfits stole it, then continued to pilfer it until they left office…the mess we are now dealing with was left for Obama, Bush even said he was going to leave it for the next administration to deal with…I think Obama will deal with it in the next 6 years…so you will get to see him in action, just like you have the last two when he was handing you and your bunch of lemmings a good ole spanking…keep throwing up those losers you are so proud of, and Obama will keep slapping them around like they are batting practice pitchers..Linda, if there is no need to worry about any deficit or balancing of the budget, then why is it so necessary to cut trillions in spending? Little bitty, I knew you would only read the big words… come on I know it’s hard to swallow those facts, just take another swig of that cool aid you are sipping on, or better yet chug some of that water from the bucket that Linda has been crying in…history tells the story.. Republican Presidents have no idea what the heck they are doing with the budget, never will.. they are too busy trying to figure out how to steal more of it from the middle class…Oh ny the way.. Linda you might want to buy a newspaper and read it…looks like the world class stinker of a budget that your boys came up with is already taking a pounding, from your own party loyalists…what happened to all that backing when your boys went back home and got their collective butts handed to them, all of a sudden those vouchers are not such a good idea after all…how funny…now that I think of it, that isn’t water in your bucket it must be crap, because you and your party sure are slinging a lot of it lately,,trying to see what will stick.. only thing about that, sometimes you get it on yourself….good luck with that voucher idea…and the election…lets see…you pissed off the seniors, women ( Newty), whats next you bring in a clown… oh wait you already have Trump…
Independent
May 11th, 2011
6:25 am
I am a big proponent of using dedicated taxes (social security, medicare, highway funds) for their intended purposes. I have no problem with cutting Social Security just enough to make it solvent (just don’t default on the borrowed Social Security Trust fund). But Medicare is a different story. If Republicans say tax increases are off the table, then they should vote for an immediate 50% cut in Medicare benefits, since that is all that Medicare taxes cover. Good luck with that. If they did that, it would insure a Democratic landslide in 2012.