Trying to make sense of the McConnell debt-ceiling plan
Sly as a fox or sneaky as a weasel? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has offered a contingency plan for a debt-ceiling increase that is being viewed both warily and cheerfully on the right — and with shock, but early seeming delight, in some precincts of the left.
Let’s try to figure out what’s going on.
Rich Lowry at National Review Online seems to have the most details about what the McConnell plan would entail. It is a backward legislation process by which the president gets what he wants, even if neither chamber can muster a majority vote in favor of what the president wants, unless a super-majority (two-thirds) of both chambers votes to override the president’s veto of the disapproval of his plan. And this process would play out three times during the next 12 months, with the president making three separate requests in the amounts of $700 billion, $900 billion and $900 billion.
Confused yet?
The plan is being called an automatic debt-ceiling increase for President Obama, which isn’t technically true — but it is true for all intents and purposes, because veto overrides are fairly rare things.
There are two apparent catches where Obama is concerned. First, he can only get a $100 million increase before Congress votes. And those votes require him to submit a plan for cutting spending — there’s no mention of raising taxes — by an amount equal to each total request. That means a total of $2.5 trillion in cuts if he’s to get all three requests.
Second, by giving the impression that a debt-ceiling increase is there for Obama’s taking if further negotiations break down, McConnell is trying to kill the arguments that congressional Republicans are blocking a deal and risking a (technical) default of the federal government.
Yet, at first glance, I have strong reservations about each point.
On the first point: There is nothing in the McConnell plan, as far as I can tell right now, to allow Congress to direct where the spending cuts go (other than the potential, but highly unlikely, veto override). As far as I can tell, Obama could simply say he’s going to cut the defense budget by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years — which Republicans and, I suspect, even a lot of Democrats would find objectionable — and Congress would be virtually powerless to stop him. (To my friends on the left: Try to keep in mind that in future years, this arrangement could set a precedent for cutting Obamacare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. in the same way.)
Worse, there does not appear to be much of an enforcement mechanism for making sure the cuts actually happen. Congress would have to incorporate them in future appropriations bills. But what if, for instance, Senate Democrats filibustered those appropriations bills until the cuts were removed. Or, worse, what if Obama went back on his word and vetoed the appropriations bills, negating the cuts he promised to make? Those scenarios may or may not be likely, but in this kind of situation I think it’s worth examining such possibilities.
And still worse, this arrangement would seem to have the same problem that congressional Republicans have complained about regarding the cuts Obama already has proposed: That they’re back-loaded in a way that keeps deficits large now and makes future cuts less likely to actually be made.
In other words, this does not seem likely to produce good fiscal policy.
Now, on the second point: This may or may not be good politics — it’s not obviously good politics, imo — but it strikes me as too clever by half and too cynical by full. I think it could easily be seen, and rightly so, as an abdication of duty.
Let the House pass a debt-ceiling measure, and let McConnell attempt to bring it to the Senate floor. Or, let them say that they’ll approve a debt-ceiling increase if the Senate will approve and Obama will sign the Ryan budget plan for 2012. And if Senate Democrats won’t take up either measure and won’t propose an alternative, we’ll know who stood in the way.
The GOP doesn’t need to resort to this kind of gimmickry. Or can someone convince me that this is actually a good idea?
– 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
185 comments Add your comment
GTT
July 12th, 2011
4:14 pm
Nope. Sure can’t, because it’s not.
Ken
July 12th, 2011
4:22 pm
I’m all for cutting 2.5 trillion in defense, and we’ll still outspend the rest of the planet.
Bill
July 12th, 2011
4:34 pm
The Republican leadership clearly fears it has lost control over too many of its insane Tea Party members. I can hardly believe this plainly idiotic, bad-faith proposal.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
4:35 pm
The Republicans only have themselves, and Grover Norquist, to blame for this one. Obama out flanked them with the $4T offer and the Republicans have been in retreat since that moment.
McConnell and the others are seeing what many of you refuse to. The majority of Americans want a balanced approach to this. 80/20 spending versus revenue was a major win for them but that little pledge to Grover made it impossible to say yes to the best deal they were going to get. Now they are stuck trying to defend huge cuts to programs that benefit a huge number of Americans while trying to convince us all that the top 2% should make no sacrifice. That’s a losing argument and they know it.
Spin it all you want but McConnell’s plan is a surrender and a big win for the Democrats.
WIDTAP
July 12th, 2011
4:35 pm
It’s worse than you think.
When the Congress votes to disapprove, and the President vetos the disapproval, the proposed budget cuts get blocked, but the debt limit still increases. Then Republicans go into 2012 talking about how the President increased the debt-limit without doing anything about the cutting spending or raising revenue.
The Constitution puts the power of the purse in Congresses hands. Congress needs to take upfront responsibility for the budget rather than asking any President to make cover for them.
that's goofy
July 12th, 2011
4:46 pm
I agree w/ Bill.
The GOP has left themselves with no room to negotiate. The all or nothing approach is stupid. The President is willing to cut spending – but he wants to close loopholes.
Stephenson Billings
July 12th, 2011
4:52 pm
I say don’t do anything. I mean, when we meet the “ceiling” it’s not as if the gov’t will stop servicing its loans. They’ll still get serviced first and the rest of the gov’t will have to make due with what’s left… shazam! automatic spending cuts.
CJ
July 12th, 2011
4:54 pm
I agree with Kyle that the McConnell proposal is gimmickry. But refusing to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democratic Senate and the Democratic President succumb to Republican demands is extortion.
Stephenson Billings
July 12th, 2011
4:59 pm
Why raise taxes?
“Federal tax revenues have exceeded federal interest payments on the national debt by more than 10-fold during the presidency of Barack Obama, according to the daily accounting statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department.
There is no way the U.S. government would need to default on its interest payments on the federal debt if the debt limit were not increased and the government allowed to borrow more money than it already has.
Also, with the current revenue stream, the federal government can afford to pay entitlement and veterans benefits and wages and insurance payments for federal workers–without having to borrow new money.
[snip]
In fact, since Obama has been president, after the government paid the interest on the debt, plus Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, and federal workers’ salaries and insurance, it still had $491.826 billion in tax revenue left to spend on discretionary items.”
ByteMe
July 12th, 2011
5:05 pm
I think it could easily be seen, and rightly so, as an abdication of duty.
It is. Congress is responsible for spending and taxation, not the President. How could this possibly be Constitutional?
It does seem like he’s trying to be too clever and he’s created a plan only Democrats could love with its complexity. It won’t fly. The Tea Partiers in his own party will likely slap it around because it takes fiscal policy out of their hands.
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:11 pm
CJ: And Democrats’ refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless the Republican House succumbs to their demands is just pattycake?
CJ
July 12th, 2011
5:26 pm
Kyle,
Will the Democratic Senate pass a clean debt-ceiling bill? Yes. Will President Obama sign a clean debt-ceiling bill, which he originally requested? Yes.
The Dems are saying that if you have demands, then we have some requests of our own. That’s not unusual in a hostage negotiation:
“At the beginning of a hostage crisis, the hostage-takers’ demands are often unreasonable. Of course, the negotiator can’t just give them anything they ask for, even if it would mean safety for the hostages…Plus, if anyone who took hostages immediately had all of his or her demands granted, the world would face one hostage crisis after another.
However, the negotiator can ‘chip away’ at the situation by offering minor concessions…In return, the hostage-takers can trade some of the hostages or some of their weapons or agree to downgrade some of their demands. By continuing this process, the negotiator can gradually weaken the hostage-takers’ position.”
http://people.howstuffworks.com/hostage-negotiation5.htm
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
July 12th, 2011
5:27 pm
Would anyone like to bet that Nasty Pelosi doesn’t understand this one either?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
5:28 pm
@Kyle – Democrats proposed a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as ha been done time and time again. Republicans had that option but chose to, for the first time, tie it to other matters. Republicans started the demand game, trying to blame that on Democrats now that your side is caving is pure partisan rhetoric.
jconservative
July 12th, 2011
5:28 pm
Kyle, the title of the column, “Trying to make sense of the McConnell debt-ceiling plan” is really a creative title.
But this is not a debt-ceiling plan. This is just another tactic in the 2012 presidential election.
But it is still humorous.
And the White House wanting to cut $4 trillion and the Republican leadership saying that is too much. That in itself is the laugh of the year to date.
And now Obama is saying no debt ceiling increase and no Social Security checks on August 3.
Will Obama just say that no debt ceiling increase and no August paychecks for all 537 elected officials? That would be a “laugh out loud”.
This would get done quicker and smoother if their was a clear cut Republican presidential front runner who could call the shots for the House. But alas.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
5:29 pm
CJ – You said it much better than I did. My refresh button is too slow.
ByteMe
July 12th, 2011
5:29 pm
CJ: excellent response.
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:33 pm
CJ: Then why hasn’t Harry Reid brought up a clean debt ceiling bill? As far as I’m aware, only the House has held a vote on such a bill. Is Reid concerned that holding such a vote — and watching it fail — would prove that Republicans aren’t the only “radicals” here?
But nice hostage-takers reference. Glad to know the New Civility is still alive and well.
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:35 pm
My guess is that Reid’s problem isn’t just that he doesn’t have any Republican votes, but that he doesn’t have all that many Democratic votes for a “clean” bill, either.
JDW
July 12th, 2011
5:37 pm
Well Kyle, first off a 4 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases isn’t just “pattycake”! In any fair negotiation I have ever seen that is a HUGE win. Want to ‘splain why the Repugs don’t take the win?
Second off I find myself continuing to ask how the heck we got from 2001 to here…
As President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
According NY Times research…
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The Business Cycle(IMO a direct result of Duhbya)-37% at fault
President George W. Bush’s policies 33% at fault…. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Bush policies Mr. Obama has chosen to extend (at great cost to us and himself)-20 %…for example Iraq, tax cuts for wealthy, bailouts signed by Bush etc…
Lastly we have new policies proposed by Mr. Obama – 10%….THATS RIGHT 10%….About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
So maybe you could explain how it is that we find ourselves in a situation created primarily by Republicans that they now want to lay off on someone else and refuse to be party to a fair and balanced solution?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
5:38 pm
Yeah, right!
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
5:40 pm
@ Kyle: What’s the point of the Senate bringing up that bill knowing the House wouldn’t vote for it?
Your getting into Bachmann territory with your revisionist history as to where the correlation between increasing the debt ceiling and deficit reduction came from.
Jefferson
July 12th, 2011
5:40 pm
Politicians don’t like simple. Why not just have a bill to raise the debt ceiling as the only item on the bill and vote on it. If you raise it, the gov’t doesn’t default if you don’t the gov’t defaults. What could be simpler? Then you know who voted to default.
Gordon
July 12th, 2011
5:42 pm
Both sides understand the need to raise the debt ceiling, and both sides understand the need for spending cuts. A clean bill would be one that does both and nothing else, and that is what the Republicans back. It is the Democrats who are introducing something else into the mix: revenue increases. Even Obama, who has proposed 5 times the spending cuts as revenue increases, understands the bulk of this will have to be done with spending cuts. And it was he who said 6 months ago that raising taxes now, even on the wealthy (those “millionaires and billionaires” who create jobs), was not a good idea at this time of nearly 10% unemployment.
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:42 pm
JDW: I’ll believe this 4:1 business is serious when a) the spending to be cut is spelled out as explicitly as the tax increases, and b) the plan doesn’t front-load the tax increases and back-load the spending cuts.
We’ve seen this movie before: Tax increases now for spending cuts later…which never fully materialize.
Gordon
July 12th, 2011
5:43 pm
Jefferson,
Why even have a debt ceiling? What meaning does it have? There are people in this world who believe there should be limits on spending. Kind of a simple idea.
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:45 pm
Blue Man @ 5:40: The House did just that with the 2012 Ryan budget. What was the point? Going on the record in favor of something rather than just pontificating. It was arguably the same when the Democratic-led House passed a cap and trade bill.
At some point, you have to be for something. Why aren’t Reid & Co. being branded the “Senate Majority of No”?
Jefferson
July 12th, 2011
5:48 pm
Gordon, the bills have to be paid. The debts are already created. They have been rung up for the last 10 years.
Why do people have mortgages, should they save their whole life to try to buy with cash?
Jefferson
July 12th, 2011
5:51 pm
But you are right, Gordon — it had no meaning for Presidents Reagan, Bush(s), and Clinton, but now it does ?
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
5:54 pm
What did dear ruler obumer once say about raising the debt ceiling… HMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
C’mon “comrades” neither YOU DEMOCRATS or YOUR DEAR RULER can walk back his bold statement made as a Senator on raising the debt ceiling now.
ABC News ~
In March 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found the notion of raising the debt ceiling quite distasteful.
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
He did. It passed narrowly – by a vote of 52-48.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/obama-2006-vs-obama-january-2011-vs-obama-april-2011-on-the-debt-ceiling.html
Who is the failed leadership now mr. obumer !?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
5:55 pm
@ Kyle: I would argue the benefits of holding a vote that you know has no chance of passing. The Republicans did it with not just the Ryan plan but also did so with the debt ceiling already and it got them exactly nowhere on both issues.
Harry Reid, as well as Obama, have been very clear that they would support a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as both have stated it many times. If you aren’t clear where they stand on this issue my guess is you are in the vast minority.
CJ
July 12th, 2011
5:57 pm
I’m speculating, Kyle, but I suspect that part of the reason is that, to their disgrace, big media have handed the microphone over to Republicans and allowed them to make raising the debt ceiling politically unpopular–as if not raising it is somehow courageous rather than scandalous (the media is beginning to change its tune). Given the polls on this issue, I suspect that the Senate hasn’t wanted to vote to raise it with a clean bill unless a clean bill would pass the House too…which the House must also do before it can get to the President’s desk.
I agree with you that Reid should have held the vote and that Democrats should have voted raise the limit. Nobody is nominating Obama and the Dems for a “Profiles in Courage” award. In my opinion, they should have been explaining the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling to the American people instead of negotiation with Republicans. They’re on the case now, but it might be too little too late.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:00 pm
Kyle Wingfield
July 12th, 2011
5:45 pm
Oh c’mon Kyle, you know it’s different when you’re talking about good socialists Big GUB’MENT Democrats. I mean, they don’t even need any budgets, do they?!
JDW
July 12th, 2011
6:03 pm
Kyle, if one party refuses to create the detail behind the framework how does it get spelled out? Boner tried and Norquist et al made him backtrack in less than 3 hours…as for tax increases now for spending cuts later WHEN have you seen this game before? The last tax increase in this country was under Clinton and it led to a balanced budget.
JDW
July 12th, 2011
6:07 pm
@ Gordon….”Why even have a debt ceiling?”
As many have speculated it may in fact be unconstitutional. Furthermore Debt Ceilings have NOTHING to do with increased spending…this issue is about paying the debts that CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED ALREADY. You want less spending…don’t authorize programs al la Medicare Part B that you don’t fund.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:10 pm
Yeah and the LAST TAX increases did NOT take place during a down economy with an unemployment rate of 9.2%.
and obumer is no Bill Clinton
JDW
July 12th, 2011
6:11 pm
@MKS…
“C’mon “comrades” neither YOU DEMOCRATS or YOUR DEAR RULER can walk back his bold statement made as a Senator on raising the debt ceiling now.”
I would not expect him to backtrack. He was certainly right in 2006 and the same holds true today. The failed leadership of DUHBYA and the rest of the gang led us to that point and we are still cleaning up the mess!
JDW
July 12th, 2011
6:14 pm
“Yeah and the LAST TAX increases did NOT take place during a down economy with an unemployment rate of 9.2%.”
So? Seems to me the economy functioned just fine at that level of taxation and it is a damn sight easier to swallow than either default or spending cuts targeted at those that can least afford them
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:23 pm
Write this down somewhere for future reference (possibly a blog) Kyle on what happens after obumer and these whining “A” socialists get their “D” tax increase back a.k.a. “those old bush tax cuts”.
1) No real spending cuts will take place
2) Size and power of the federal government grows
3) Greater deficit spending occurs once those regained bush tax cuts have been spent in about, oh what say, 90 days?
Now the sensible readers should understand why we conservatives oppose giving into increasing taxes of any kind before FORCING cuts in spending, reductions in the power and size of the federal government. If we don’t it will be BIG GOVERNMENT BUSINESS WORSE THAN USUAL
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:33 pm
It seems “me”, as in YOU, missed something in reading that comment. Try this one more time: There was no economic down turn under Clinton as there is under obumer presently and unemployment wasn’t 9.2% under Clinton.
Clinton and obumer are nothing alike nor is economy of the ’90s anything like 2008 (actually 2006) to the present. That’s what isSO!.
John
July 12th, 2011
6:38 pm
Kyle, why should Harry Reid bring up a clean debt ceiling bill? The Republicans would only filibuster it like they always do. Republicans got themselves into this mess not they’re trying to squirm their way out of it. Look at what Boehner said today…it’s Obama’s problem.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
6:43 pm
@ Michael – Spare us. If you “conservatives” were truly worried about spending you would not have started two wars, passed a major tax cut and enacted a new entitlement program without funding any of it.
stranger in a strange land
July 12th, 2011
6:45 pm
The term ‘fubar’ would apply in this case?
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:50 pm
I’m sitting very firmly Kyle, how about you, are you squirming?
Hey the Dems are crying this full faith and credit non-sense.
All it would take is ONE… are you getting this liberals…. only ONE failed bond issue and the so-called full faith and credit of the United States of America wouldn’t be worth a lukewarm bucket of soured spit to anyone.
If this country does not address its debt NOW not years from NOW the debt ceiling really won’t matter one way or the other… just ONE failed bond issue is all it will take and we shall be as bad off if not worse off than Greece.
John
July 12th, 2011
6:52 pm
This has more to do with politics than raising the debt ceiling or the deficit. Eric Cantor said yesterday asking conservatives to raise the debt ceiling is a big deal…yet he himself voted to raise it several times…he did in 2002, 2003 and 2004. It was raised 7 times during the Bush administration. They didn’t have a problem with deficits while they controlled Congress and the White House. The Republicans got themselves in a bind…they voted to kill medicare as we know it in the Ryan Plan and found themselves the subject of a backlash at town hall meetings and recently lost a seat in a very Republican district. The leadership basically threw their members under the bus by forcing them all to go along with it…look what happened to Newt when he spoke against it. Knowing the Democrats can use this issue in the 2012 elections, they are basically trying to force Democrats to gut Medicare and remove the issue from the 2012 election cycle.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
6:55 pm
Blue Man on a Red Island @ spare yourself and your ignorance of fact: Bush was not a conservative.
Oh and by the way has obumer and your Democrats stopped any wars lately?
Oh yeah, that’s right dear ruler went on the offensive in Libya without going to Congress didn’t he?
Huh! SPARE YOU LIBERALS, INDEED!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
6:55 pm
Blue Man on a Red Island: If you “conservatives” were truly worried about spending you would not have…passed a major tax cut…
——————
Tax revenues went up after our President Bush’s tax cuts were implemented.
Obozo promised during the 2008 campaign to end our President Bush’s tax cuts even before they expired. Then he changed his mind and agreed with our President Bush’s tax policy. Now he’s changed his mind again and wants to raise taxes. Your Idiot Messiah is like a squirrel in the middle of the road who can’t decide which way to scamper and is about to get flattened.
Don’t fear facts.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
6:56 pm
McConnell’s plan is too darn confusing.
Bring on the balanced budget, er, debt limit.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
6:59 pm
CJ: Will the Democratic Senate pass a clean debt-ceiling bill? Yes. Will President Obama sign a clean debt-ceiling bill, which he originally requested? Yes.
——————–
Of course they will, they can’t continue their reckless, un-American spending without a clean increase.
Not going to happen though–the adults have arrived to clean up your Idiot Messiah’s mess.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:06 pm
You guys have me confused as an Obama fan. I am a progressive (liberal, whatever makes you feel superior), and Obama is not. I do, however, side with the Democrats on this one. Conservatives helped run up the debt and they want to cut it on the backs of the less fortunate.
How’s that plan working out so far?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:07 pm
Time to eat your peas, parasites and Democrats. Oops, redundant!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:08 pm
Obozo would be a progressive, if he weren’t so far left. He’s more accurately described as a liberal fascist.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:09 pm
And if we are so broke, why did the “conservatives” in the House pass a bill last week that INCREASED defense spending by $17B?
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
McConnell looks like a turtle.
He acts like a weasel.
Go Cowboys!!!
what??
July 12th, 2011
7:10 pm
LBB-
Tax revenues went up after our President Bush’s tax cuts were implemented.
WHAT…me and Linda had a talk about this downstairs. She even posted a chart. That my friend is incorrect.
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:11 pm
Those Rethugnicans have to protect their corporate sponsors. We cannot ask millionaires and billionaires to give more money in taxes. So what if GE paid no taxes last year. It will trickle down and all will be happy.
Lee
July 12th, 2011
7:12 pm
Ryan’s plan has already proven to be a loser with both parties (remember all the outcry at Townhall meetings?). Why are you still hanging on to this dream, Kyle?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:13 pm
@ LBB – Ahhhh yes, name calling. Weapon of choice for those who can’t win a debate with facts.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:15 pm
Blue Man on a Red Island @ I am a progressive…
Which makes you exactly an obumer fan and a socialist like Woodrow Wilson period. And it was because of Wilson as some have said that we have this deb ceiling business because he cried and cried about Congress wouldn’t let him spend more money like he wanted to on good progressive socialism.
Now how’s that working for you? Are you still confused?
I’m not.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:19 pm
Blue Man@7:09, To pay for the war that Obama surged, that other one & the non-war war be began that congress found out about from watching TV.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:20 pm
I’m not confused at all. The debt ceiling issue is not a R or D issue. Regan requested it be raised just as Obama is now doing.
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader
July 12th, 2011
7:21 pm
Why is Michelle Bachman married to a closet case homosexual?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
Tax revenue in 2003 (first year of our President Bush’s tax cuts): $1.78 trillion
Tax revenue in 2006: $2.41 trillion.
Don’t fear facts.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:22 pm
@Linda – Gen Powell famously told President Bush on Iraq, you break it…you bought it. Obama had no choice but to continue it and follow the advice of his military advisors.
And just to be clear, I completely disagree with Obama’s decision to become involved in Lybia’s civil war.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
7:24 pm
Both sides have to give up something they don’t want to inorder to have a compromise. This would be actually governing. However, the Dems have offered many tax cuts. $4 B? Where is the reciprocation from the Republicans?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:25 pm
what@7:10, Lil’ Barry is correct. Not only did tax revenues go up, but unemployment continued to go down. Tax cuts work.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
John
July 12th, 2011
7:26 pm
Linda@7:19, “To pay for the war that Obama surged, that other one & the non-war war be began that congress found out about from watching TV.”
Do you agree we shouldn’t be in those wars? Did you feel the same way when Bush took us there? Let’s get out of those and scale back military spending…we don’t need to be the world’s police.
arnold
July 12th, 2011
7:27 pm
Sorry $4 Trillion.
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:28 pm
“Conservatives helped run up the debt and they want to cut it on the backs of the less fortunate. ”
Really? Been in the meetings, have you? Know what’s been discussed as far as cuts, have you?
Manufactured poutrage.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:29 pm
arnold: Both sides have to give up something they don’t want to inorder to have a compromise.
———————-
What would you have compromised on with Hitler?
There is no compromise with evil of the sort represented by Nazi Fascists or Obozo.
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
arnold, that $4 trillion is NOT a serious proposal by this President. It was a POLITICAL proposal released last Friday, ONE WEEK before there really needs to be an agreement and 2 days before negotiators were going to meet.
If you’ve been meeting for months, and have come close to having $2 trillion in cuts already largely agreed upon, what possible reason would ANYONE have to dump a steaming pile of $4 trillion in cuts WITH ENTITLEMENT REFORM into that mix?
The answer is – NONE. Unless they want to be seen politically as being wonderful or they WANT the talks to fail.
You’re buying into the Kool-aid this administration serves if you think that $4 trillion was a serious proposal.
John
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
Hitler? Hmmm…he was a dictator, wasn’t he? No compromise…my way or the highway. Sounds more like Republicans to me.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:33 pm
Oh yeah you are definitely confused or ignorant of your facts.
You may recall from our prior discussions that all this started in 1917 when the government wanted to borrow money to finance World War I. In those days, President Woodrow Wilson–the original Nanny Stator who thought he could direct people’s lives from the White House–made so many requests to the Congress for legal authority to borrow, that the Congress got tired of hearing them.
So, Congress changed the law and gave the President and the Treasury Secretary blanket authority to borrow up to a certain amount; however and whenever they wished, so long as their total borrowing did not exceed a given, congressionally determined amount. When they reached that amount, they asked for authority to borrow more. Thus was born the debt ceiling.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/2011/06/01/debt-ceiling-theatre#ixzz1Rw9X35OC
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
7:34 pm
And Kyle, don’t try to make any sense of the McConnell Plan, because it has none.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:37 pm
Hitler? Hmmm
Actually Hitler and his NAZI party barrowed heavily from the PROGRESSIVES.
Not exactly Republican but then again talking points never do quite measure up to the truth found in reality.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:37 pm
@LBB – Wow, from name calling to Hitler. You literally have no argument do you? I have to agree with Eric Erickson from Redstate (conservative blog) that the first one to throw a nazi reference is the automatic loser.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
Blue@7:22, If you agree that O had no choice but to continue the war in Iraq, why are you complaining that the “conservatives” are increasing defense spending?
If you agree that “Obama had no choice but to continue it (Iraq) & follow the advice of all of his military advisers,” then why are you not complaining that he should follow the advice of at least one of his military advisers regarding pulling out of Afghanistan, coincidentally right before the 11/12 election?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:39 pm
@Michael – OK, so it started under Wilson, so what? How many Republicans have tried to get rid of it if it’s such a horrible liberal scheme? Hang on I’ll help you, zero. Regan and Bush both used it so it is clearly not a liberal issue but nice try.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
7:42 pm
Americans are the losers with the incompetent Obozo still trying to figure out how he got in so far over his head.
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:42 pm
@Dave R – So if the cuts weren’t real why is McConnell looking to punt instead of calling Obama on his bluff?
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
7:48 pm
@Linda – Because we are broke, haven’t you heard? If we can’t afford to Americans with American tax dollars we can’t afford to help Iraqi’s and Afghani’s with American tax dollars.
My point is you can’t scream we are broke and say cuts are all that matters and then vote to increase spending on defense and say tax cuts are off the table. You are either worried about the deficit or you aren’t.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:50 pm
Oh boy where we go again, SO what, So what.
The Republicans aren’t the best but pee-gressives and the Democrats are real pure crap. Democrats have started more wars, spent beyond reason on socialist programs that should not be federal matters to begin with and are the damnedest bunch of BIG GUB’MENT control freaks this side of socialist Fascism seen since Marx.
Pal don’t even try to defend these damn democrats to me or your ‘f’ ing pee-gressive a.k.a. socialists. I hate the politics of both of them, SO.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
7:52 pm
John@7:26, Bush did not take us anywhere. Congress did. Democrats spoke out loud & clear about going into both. Would you like for me to cite the videos?
We have troops stationed all over the place protecting our delivery of foreign oil, because we have politicians who keep trying to convince us we don’t have our own abundance of natural resources, & if we did, we can’t use them because fossil fuels cause air/breath/carbon dioxide/plant food & heat up the globe.
We also have 26,000 troops who have been defending the border of S. Korea my entire life, but we can’t send troops to our southern border where terrorists are coming in & where drug violence is treating Americans.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
7:55 pm
I can scream whatever I want. Cut, cut, cut, cut and cut some bloody more until there isn’t one dry eyed Democrat left in the country that isn’t bemoaning the death of BIG SOCIALIST GUB’MENT.
Truth Squad
July 12th, 2011
7:57 pm
This is just more Big Government Conservative hot air. There’s a $4 Trillion deal on the table now. I’d suggest Republicans take that deal, they aren’t going to get any better. Even Newt knows this new proposal isn’t a good idea for Republicans. Ol’ Grover is also starting to realize that he has help put Republicans in a bind that some will not survive. He can’t repudiate the pledge he made people sign, or he’ll actually have to work for a living, which might be hard for him.
According to new polling, Tea Party Republicans don’t want the ceiling raised even if it’s revenue-neutral, don’t want any revenue increases, want a cap on spending, and they want a balanced budget amendment.
President Obama is taking heat from his party, so let us not pretend that it isn’t real. The Dow is tanking, so let’s not have anymore denials about the reality of this deadline.
The answer to why no “clean bill” has been proposed in the Senate has to do with the new 60-vote standard Republicans have created. Budget deals can’t be filibustered, but a free standing debt ceiling deal can be stopped by one lone Senator. Can you say, Jim Demint”? Also, this drama is not playing well for the Republicans, as polling tells us that Americans trust President Obama on this matter more than Republicans by almost 2-1 margin (65-35).
So why should Democrats take heat for spending cuts, and then help Republicans wiggle out of another mess they created?
Take the $4 Trillion deal. Go ahead, be fiscally responsible for a change. What about the children and future generations and all that stuff? This is your moment Republicans, take it. President Obama has already beaten you on this issue in the court of public opinion (outside of the Fox News crowd…$7 billion in value gone..poof…laysoffs soon? stay tuned) so you might as well get what you asked for, right? Right?
Naw, I didn’t think so.
Big Government Conservatives exposed, oh the humanity!
Blue Man on a Red Island
July 12th, 2011
8:00 pm
@Michael – Where is all the socialism you Obama haters keep talking about? Either I am missing something or you guys need to lookup the word socialism in the dictionary.
And really, pee-gressives, that the best you got? Whatever gets you through the night I guess.
what??
July 12th, 2011
8:05 pm
Linda-
Seriously, we literally just had this conversation on the last blog. And the fact that ya’ll don’t know he cut the top rates in both 2001 and 2003 has me a little scared. And the fact that you say unemployment went down and based that off a tax cut, tell me who had more jobs, Clinton or Bush. One lowered rates, one raised rate…this is stupid. I’m threw talking to people who literally just make up stuff that defies all facts.
LBB/Linda-
Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
And even more, compare them after 2001. So we have to wait 4 years for a tax cut to generate more revenue. Sounds pretty stupid.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:07 pm
Blue@7:48, If you defend O for following the advice of his military advisers in 1 country, it seems strange that you would support him for not following the advice of his military advisers in another country.
I’m just saying that decreasing military spending when we are still in 3 wars, one of which is a non-war war, might not be a great idea.
Michael H. Smith
July 12th, 2011
8:13 pm
Yeah you’re missing something alright, the that fact that your propaganda isn’t working so good and what I’ve got is plenty better than anything you brought to fore so far, especially where facts just happen to matter.
All I hear from you liberal socialist is raise taxes and those old bush tax cuts that’s the best YOU GOT, more liberal socialist dunkey dung tax borrow spend and expand government and then have the unmitigated gall to ask where is the SOCIALISM?
old timer
July 12th, 2011
8:16 pm
What SENATOR Obama said about raising the debt ceiling…that is the correct answer.
Red dude
July 12th, 2011
8:26 pm
@Michael H. Smith 8:13
Can you please stop posting? Your ignorance is proving their point. Let’s stick with our conservative principle and quit the silly name calling.
lannnerbraves
July 12th, 2011
8:27 pm
I wouldn’t give obama power over anyting..has he not done enough damage?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:32 pm
what@8:05, Yes, Clinton raised tax rates & Bush lowered tax rates. Here’s the unemployment rates during both administrations. If you decipher them, you can see that the average unemployment rate during Clinton was 5.205% & during Bush was 5.2675%.
The unemployment rate under Obama has averaged 9.45% for his first full 2 yrs.
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
8:33 pm
The average yearly increase in taxe revenue under Bill Clinton was 8% under George Bush it was 3%.
Over the entire Bill Clinton Presidency tax revenue went up 86% while under Bush tax revenue went up 25%.
It would seem that if tax cuts are better then the tax revenue would go up more when we cut taxes than when we raised taxes.
My president is black
July 12th, 2011
8:34 pm
The Republicans blinked plain and simple. At least President Obama put $4t in cuts on the table all Republicans had to do was agree to close a few loopholes wholes the President would have took a grilling for cuts to Medicare and Social Security and would have surely lost next year and wouldve given the Republicans the mantle of saving future generations….but they blinked and said its Obama problem now…excuse me but by law isn’t The Congress supposed to approve and pass the budget?
Red dude
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
@Linda 8:32 Look at those unemployment numbers compared to Reagan. They are almost identical. Can’t draw any conclusions from your info. Reagan is our hero. Pls don’t post anything that can be used against him!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
what??: Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
————————–
Yeah, thanks Clinton for the Internet bubble bursting and handing a recession and an al Qaeda operation in progress over to our President Bush.
Our President Bush’s tax cuts weren’t implemented until 2003 so it’s rather ignorant to attribute 2001 or 2002 revenue to something that hadn’t happened yet.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
Bottom line: Our President Bush cut tax rates and revenues went up. If you claim otherwise, you’re an idiot or a liar.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites sites to back up my comments?
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites govt. websites to back up my comments?
Why do Democrats argue with facts from historical govt. websites?
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
8:47 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:43 pm
what??: Compare Clinton’s last year in tax receipts to Bush’s in 2003, 2004, and they barely beat it in 2005.
————————–
Yeah, thanks Clinton for the Internet bubble bursting and handing a recession and an al Qaeda operation in progress over to our President Bush.
Our President Bush’s tax cuts weren’t implemented until 2003 so it’s rather ignorant to attribute 2001 or 2002 revenue to something that hadn’t happened yet.
++++
Tax revenue under Clinton went up 86% while under Bush only 25%. It seems if cutting taxes actually generated revenue the opposite would be true.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:48 pm
It seems if cutting taxes actually generated revenue the opposite would be true.
——————-
I’m only proving that what someone said earlier was a lie or based in ignorance of the facts. Bush lowered rates and revenue went up.
Deal with it.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:49 pm
My president is black@8:34, You must mean Herman Cain. He’s all black, you know.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
8:49 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:45 pm
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites sites to back up my comments?
Why am I one of the few people on this blog that cites govt. websites to back up my comments?
Why do Democrats argue with facts from historical govt. websites?
+++++
Tax revenue under Clinton went up 86% while under Bush they went up only 25%.
OMB historical tables.
Allen
July 12th, 2011
8:52 pm
The Republicans have proven the only thing they are good at is politicking . . . they absolutely cannot govern . . . and they could care less about the average American. Neither are they fiscally conservative as they would lead everyone to believe. Historically, it has always taken a Democratic administration to straighten out the mess Republicans make.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
8:56 pm
Incorrect. Our President Bush had to fix the fallout from Clinton’s internet bubble collapse, recession, and al Qaeda plot in progress, and the Democrats failed parasite mortgage programs.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:57 pm
Moderate@8:49, Spin, spin, spin. I’ve already posted the tables of revenues, spending & deficits. I’ve already posted the unemployment numbers. These were all from govt. websites.
What are you trying to spin now?
Allen
July 12th, 2011
9:00 pm
@Lil’ Barry Bailout – Clinton left Bush a surplus . . . Bush spent that and then ran up the biggest deficit in our history to-date. You Repubs ran our economy in the ditch . . . and now you are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us out.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:02 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
8:57 pm
Moderate@8:49, Spin, spin, spin. I’ve already posted the tables of revenues, spending & deficits. I’ve already posted the unemployment numbers. These were all from govt. websites.
What are you trying to spin now?
++++
I presented facts and you try to dismiss them as spin. The fact is under Clinton tax revenues went up 86% under Bush only 25%.
If someone presents facts that you don’t like you call it spin.
Red dude
July 12th, 2011
9:02 pm
LBB @8:56
Again, please don’t show your ignorance and provide the libs with amo…..al Qaeda struck on Bush’s watch! We should be happy that libs haven’t held that against Bush!
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:03 pm
Allen@8:52, Pray tell how the Republicans made this “mess.” Wasn’t it instigated by Democrat lawmakers in the ’90s by declaring that home ownership was a right, not a privilege, & that people who had no job/income, bad/no credit & no money were entitled to own a home?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:04 pm
Surplus? Incorrect. Clinton increased the national debt every year.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:05 pm
Clinton did nothing for eight years while al Qaeda attacked us repeatedly and planned and trained for 9/11. Clinton could have taken OBL from the Sudan when they offered him to us. Clinton decided to let OBL go free.
Clinton: Do-nothing coward on Islamofascist terrorism.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:08 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:04 pm
Surplus? Incorrect. Clinton increased the national debt every year.
+++
The OMB tables would seem to disagree with you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:09 pm
The national debt tables would not.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:09 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:05 pm
Clinton did nothing for eight years while al Qaeda attacked us repeatedly and planned and trained for 9/11. Clinton could have taken OBL from the Sudan when they offered him to us. Clinton decided to let OBL go free.
Clinton: Do-nothing coward on Islamofascist terrorism.
+++++
I thought we were talking about taxes.
Under which president have more Americans died from terrorist attacks?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:12 pm
Allen@ 9:00, Where can you document that Clinton left a surplus? How much was it? Where is it? The facts from the Treasury Dept. indicate that his adm. also added to the debt every year that he was in office.
Bush did not run up the biggest deficit in our history to date. His adm. added $4.351 T to the natl. debt in 8 yrs. Obama’s adm. has added $4.5 T in 20 mts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:12 pm
Who permitted OBL to plot, train for, and deploy his Islamofascist terrorists to the US?
Clinton cowardly did nothing to respond to the African embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing, or Khobar Towers. Clinton declined to take custody of OBL from the Sudan.
The 9/11 victims’ blood is on Clintons hands only.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:14 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:03 pm
Allen@8:52, Pray tell how the Republicans made this “mess.” Wasn’t it instigated by Democrat lawmakers in the ’90s by declaring that home ownership was a right, not a privilege, & that people who had no job/income, bad/no credit & no money were entitled to own a home?
++++++
Well, why didn’t the Republicans change all that since they had a majority in the Senate from 1995 to 2001. They controlled the house from 1995 to 2007.
I can’t see how Bush and the Republicans were able to pass these tax cuts but were unable to change the lending laws.
Allen
July 12th, 2011
9:16 pm
You right-wingers on here seem to believe everything those misleading, anti-Obama corporate paid for TV commercials claim. They are only trying to protect the wealthiest 1 to 2% of Americans. If you really want fiscal responsiblity, let’s not forget that Obama voted against Bush’s unjust war in Iraq — one predicated on Bush and Cheney lies about WMD’s . . . that ongoing debacle is what primarily got us into this financial mess.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:16 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:12 pm
Allen@ 9:00, Where can you document that Clinton left a surplus? How much was it? Where is it? The facts from the Treasury Dept. indicate that his adm. also added to the debt every year that he was in office.
Bush did not run up the biggest deficit in our history to date. His adm. added $4.351 T to the natl. debt in 8 yrs. Obama’s adm. has added $4.5 T in 20 mts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
++++
OMB website table 1.1.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:17 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:12 pm
Who permitted OBL to plot, train for, and deploy his Islamofascist terrorists to the US?
Clinton cowardly did nothing to respond to the African embassy bombings, USS Cole bombing, or Khobar Towers. Clinton declined to take custody of OBL from the Sudan.
The 9/11 victims’ blood is on Clintons hands only.
+++
Who allowed them to board an airplane.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Clinton. How do you think they got here?
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Moderate@9:02, Again, I made comments & backed them up with govt. websites. You made comments & did not back them with tomatoes or radishes.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Clinton. How do you think they got here?
+++
They were on those planes for a year. lol
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:19 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Moderate@9:02, Again, I made comments & backed them up with govt. websites. You made comments & did not back them with tomatoes or radishes.
++
I did OMB website.
yuzeyurbrane
July 12th, 2011
9:19 pm
Get real Kyle. The problem with the passage of a clean bill lies with the Republicans’ decision to engage in the extortion busn. rather than the use of normal legis. process like hearings, votes, etc. If they decide to agree to a clean bill, like all Presidents, Repub. and Dem., have gotten in the past then it will happen. But the public already resents the financial bind the Repubs have put us in. Who in their right mind would want to play politics with honoring our country’s debts? As Repub. columnist David Brooks noted, the GOP has lost its right to govern and will be treated as the fringe group it has become until it cleans its own house of its own extremists.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:20 pm
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:19 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Moderate@9:02, Again, I made comments & backed them up with govt. websites. You made comments & did not back them with tomatoes or radishes.
++
I did OMB website.
+++
That’s why they put the .gov at the end of it. lol
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:20 pm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:21 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Moderate@9:02, Again, I made comments & backed them up with govt. websites. You made comments & did not back them with tomatoes or radishes.
++++
All my date comes from the OMB historical tables.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:23 pm
yuzeyurbrane: The problem with the passage of a clean bill lies with the Democrat party’s desire to keep up their obscene, un-American spending spree.
——————————–
Fixed at no charge.
Allen
July 12th, 2011
9:27 pm
@ yuzeyurbrane – Amen, brother.
what??
July 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
Linda-
I am assuming that website composes a yearly average.
So basically what you have proved was the Clinton enjoyed lower unemployment with higher taxes than Bush did with lower taxes. (5.205 to 5.26). You are literally arguing against your own point. And I am sure the comment about posting sites wasn’t directed to me as I use all the cites you post against you. If that what conservatism is, I don’t want any part of it…this is stupid. It’s like debating with a child who doesn’t understand what they read.
LBB-
WOW..you don’t even know that Bush passed 2 tax cuts. What the F???
He passed one in 2001 and the other in 2003…wow..just….wow..
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
Moderate@9:14, The Reps. come on board with the Dems. until ‘03 when they saw the writing on the wall. The Reps. tried again in ‘05 to rein in Fannie Mae & Freddie Mae, but met resistance from the
Dems. Whatever went on after the passage of the bill in 1992 to declare home ownership was a right was a travesty. You need to read about the entire episode. It will make you cry.
Real Athens
July 12th, 2011
9:34 pm
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:36 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:18 pm
Moderate@9:02, Again, I made comments & backed them up with govt. websites. You made comments & did not back them with tomatoes or radishes.
++++
At 8:49 in a response to you I cited the OMB tables so it would seem your comments are more reflective of yourself than me.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:36 pm
My statement stands unchallenged. After our President Bush’s tax cutS were implemented, revenue went up.
Don’t fear facts.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:43 pm
Allen@9:16, Yes, “Obama voted against Bush’s unjust war in Iraq” & kept it going.
He also ordered a surge in Afghanistan.
He also went to war on Libya without congressional approval. Congress learned of it from TV.
What lies about weapons of mass destruction? Wikileaks has proved otherwise.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:43 pm
National debt went up every year under Clinton. No surplus.
Source: OMB Table.
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:44 pm
Moderate@9:19, Where’s your website?
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:47 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
9:33 pm
Moderate@9:14, The Reps. come on board with the Dems. until ‘03 when they saw the writing on the wall. The Reps. tried again in ‘05 to rein in Fannie Mae & Freddie Mae, but met resistance from the
Dems. Whatever went on after the passage of the bill in 1992 to declare home ownership was a right was a travesty. You need to read about the entire episode. It will make you cry.
+++++
What makes me cry is the lack of responsibilty. Bush could get the same congress to allow him to start two wars, pass two tax increases and give away free medicine to medicare patients but these same people could not fix fannie mai and freddie mac. Did not the dems resist at least one of the wars and tax increase. It would seem in hindsight these lending laws were more important. However, to the ideological Republicans they weren’t as important as Iraq or tax cuts.
Go to Open Secrets.org and see who Freddie Mac was giving money to.
From 1992 to 2010.
Freddie Mac
Rep $4,835,834
Dem $3,771,228
Fannie Mae
Rep $2,890,395
Dem $3,052,657
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 12th, 2011
9:47 pm
~ The effective tax rate is the lowest in 60 years.
~ The Bush Tax Cuts have been in affect for nearly ten years. Where’s the magnificent benifits?
~ CEO pay is 750 that of the average employee at his company.
~ Tax loopholes allow companies making tens of billions in profits to avoid paying U.S. taxes ie. Exxon, General Electric and an array of other Fortune 500 companies.
~ The wealthy make most of their income from investment, so only pay capital gains taxes which are considerably lower than the income taxes paid by the average working class stiff.
If I am in a financial bind, I will difinitely cut my expenses to the bone, but, in the meantime, I’ll try to increase my income by taking on an extra part-time job. Cutting is important, but additional income is also needed to address the deficit that was created by a prescription drug program that was not carefully thought out and two ten year wars — to say nothing about the financial meltdown.
To fail to address our financial dilemna by cutting to the bone, but also eliminating tax loopholes and raises taxes in a responsible manner is spineless pandering to a fringe element who doesn’t understand the math and is only concerned with driving the ship of state into a sandbar in order to defeat President Obama.
But, the fact is, a year is a lifetime in politics and things can change dramatically. Methinks the obituary for Obama is a bit premature.
And, so it goes. . . .
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:51 pm
Clinton “Skink” Tyree: If I am in a financial bind, I will difinitely cut my expenses to the bone, but, in the meantime, I’ll try to increase my income by taking on an extra part-time job.
——————–
If you were the government, you would just take the money from someone who earned it.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
9:53 pm
Year Total
Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (−)
1993 1,154,335 1,409,386 -255,051
1994 1,258,566 1,461,753 -203,186
1995 1,351,790 1,515,742 -163,952
1996 1,453,053 1,560,484 -107,431
1997 1,579,232 1,601,116 -21,884
1998 1,721,728 1,652,458 69,270
1999 1,827,452 1,701,842 125,610
2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489
Table 1.1 oMB Table note the posite for the year surplus.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:54 pm
Sorry, Moderate, no sale. Those numbers paper over Clinton’s deficits by stealing the Social Security trust fund. Nice try though.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
10:00 pm
Moderate @ 9:19 & 9:20 & 9:21, Let me explain this to you. I don”t quote from FOX News & liberals don’t quote from MSNBC for the same reason. Your quoting from the White House Office of Management & Budget gives you no credibility.
Common Sense
July 12th, 2011
10:04 pm
If Mitch’s plan is to make Obama King of America, he should resign now.
Eric
July 12th, 2011
10:05 pm
Brilliant .. let Barry keep signing checks that we can’t pay for..
The sheer incompetence and ineptitude of the idiot-in-chief astounds me.. but at least we only have 16 more months… NEVER AGAIN!
Common Sense
July 12th, 2011
10:06 pm
~ The effective tax rate is the lowest in 60 years.
That’s only because incomes have dropped the most in 60 years.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
10:10 pm
what@9:33, If you had bothered to click on the website I posted, you could have easily seen that the unemployment rates during Clinton with higher tax rates were basically the same as those during Bush with lower tax rates.
It’s rather reveling that you “don’t want any part” of assessing the cites I posted.
Linda
July 12th, 2011
10:25 pm
Moderate@947, I’m so glad you brought up Open Secrets & who got what from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mae, the culprits who brought our economy to its knees. Seems that Chris Dodd of the Dodd-Frank 2000+ page bill got the most, who had been in Washington for decades. Seems that Obama got the second most moolah, the junior senator who had been in DC for 2 yrs. Why do you think that was?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
JDW
July 12th, 2011
10:25 pm
@MKS…”That’s what isSO!.”
Just ’cause you “Conservatives” in mind only proclaim it to be true It must be?
Dave R.
July 12th, 2011
10:27 pm
“So if the cuts weren’t real why is McConnell looking to punt instead of calling Obama on his bluff?”
Because McConnell is an idiot disguised as a U.S. Senator.
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
10:31 pm
Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 12th, 2011
9:54 pm
Sorry, Moderate, no sale. Those numbers paper over Clinton’s deficits by stealing the Social Security trust fund. Nice try though.
+++++
That is good logic. The government is stealing from the government. In that case then if you take the total cost of medicare and social security you will see together these two programs actually have spent more than they have taken in. It is only when you seperate out social security that it seem as if the governmnet “is stealing”.
Since 2000 Medicare has paid out 1.6 million and socail security has collected excess funds of 393 million. It just so happens that the only years since 1995 that social security and medicare collected together collected more than they paid out was 2000 and 2001 so techically the trust funds in general have been a drain on general revenues or shall we say thieves.
This is all taken from the tables 3.2 and 2.4 of the OMB tables with some calculations.
This why Paul Ryans budget address medicare because medicare is one of the main drivers of the deficit because it STEALS more from the general treasury than the general tresury steals from social security.
lol
Real Athens
July 12th, 2011
10:37 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA
Moderate Line
July 12th, 2011
10:44 pm
Linda
July 12th, 2011
10:25 pm
Moderate@947, I’m so glad you brought up Open Secrets & who got what from Fannie Mae & Freddie Mae, the culprits who brought our economy to its knees. Seems that Chris Dodd of the Dodd-Frank 2000+ page bill got the most, who had been in Washington for decades. Seems that Obama got the second most moolah, the junior senator who had been in DC for 2 yrs. Why do you think that was?
+++
I will not defend Dodd or Obama but at the same time I am not going to obsolve the Republicans. George Bush received the third most in 2004.
The one that cracks me up is GM. Why is GM able to give money for lobbying when the government owns them. I don’t get it.
Well see you later.
Truth Squad
July 12th, 2011
11:19 pm
Tax rates need to be raised back to where they were under President Eisenhower (90%). When the national deficit is cut in half, then lower them to what they were under President Kennedy’s tax cut (around 70%) that conservatives love to cite.
When the deficit is retired, then further lower the rates to where they were in President Regan’s second year (around 69%).Then keep them there.
Under these rates, this country had robust growth, everyone who wanted a job could find one. There was no need for both parents to work, and we still lead the world in innovation,social mobility, millionaires, and billionaires.
If you believe in capitalism, then it is crystal clear that it must be rescued from the failed economic policies of the past 40 years or so. Europe is in trouble, developing countries are in trouble, and the U.S. is in trouble. The era of worshiping the wealthy at the expense of the Working and Middle Class has to end, or we really will see people trying to turn to socialism and maybe even communism (China is doing really well is it not?).
The idea that a very small select few should control all of the planet’s resources, and the destinies of billions of people cannot survive unless we act. Capitalism can work. Free markets can work if government, yes government, stops playing favorites, and making rules that guarantee big corporations always have a low wage labor market.
Antitrust regulations must be rigorously enforced so that we don’t have a handful of companies controlling every sector of the market and able to keep small business from prospering.
At some point, social order breaks down as the economy becomes less fair and social darwinism becomes the rule. Now that we’ve decided cops are nothing more than costs just like any other employee, the firewall between the have and have nots is growing weaker by the day.
Shame on all of you who continue to vote for politicians that do not have Middle and Working Classes as their top economic priority. And yes, some of those politicians can be found in the Democratic Party.
I very much look forward to the second Obama/Biden term. After another devastating loss, I believe smart Republicans will begin to act in the best interests of the country and planet rather than blind adherence to Big Government Conservative dogma.
Get Real
July 12th, 2011
11:32 pm
Truth Squad
Are you friggin insane? Drunk off you a$$? Or just plain tripping?
Please do not reproduce for the sake of everyone in this country!!
Michael T
July 12th, 2011
11:57 pm
I don’t really have anything to say. I was just compelled to post something because Kyle only has 157 comments and Jay Bookman has over 1,000. I really don’t understand it. Kyle’s blog is just as interesting and it’s about the same thing. I know it’s not a matter of AJC readers not being conservative. I can tell by the vents that most of AJC readers are conservative. I just don’t understand how Jay gets so many comments. Anyway, I just wanted to do my part to help Kyle compete.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:13 am
Maybe liberals just talk more than conservatives. They should all get together on facebook or myspace and get to know each other.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:24 am
I’ve done some research and it appears Jay is very insulting and condescending to many of those who dare to comment on his blog. You should try that Kyle. Apparently people like it.
There, now I’ve made three posts ’bout nothing. I feel I’ve done my part. I can’t sit here all night and make hundreds of post. Carry on Kyle and good luck.
Michael T
July 13th, 2011
12:27 am
Oh yeah, one more thing. Will all you Michaels out there please change your screen name to “Mike” or something else? Thank you.
Truth Squad
July 13th, 2011
12:37 am
@Get Real, truth doesn’t require insults and talking points, or blind adherence to dogma.Those of you who are keyboard warriors dutifully firing off what you feel are interesting put downs of those who dare disagree with you, are actually quite sad. I feel for you, not because I am commanded by my faith to do so, but that you folks are so obviously burdened with hate, anger, bitterness, and negative energy. The gift of life is too short and imperfect, to carry around the mindset you people have just takes up too much time and spirit, in my humble opinion.
Then again, someone obviously reproduced and now the rest of us have to deal with the likes of you!
I want you to know that you can feel free to hurl all the insults and talking points you can muster. I have reality on my side. Sooner or later, I’m betting sooner, the economic policies that has gotten all of these economies in a deep hole will have to end.
People like you might be willing to watch chaos ensue and the planet implode, but I believe most people just want to live their lives, raise their children, enjoy their family and friends, and live out their lives in dignity.In the end, dignity will win out over greed because humans are programed to survive. We will not survive if we continue to listen to people like you.
Tick Tock! Change is inevitable. There are more of us than there are of you, you’ve lost, you know it, so you have nothing left but insults, talking points, and causing as much misery in the brief time you have left. Very sad indeed.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 13th, 2011
6:02 am
Truth Squad: Tax rates need to be raised back to where they were under President Eisenhower (90%).
———————-
You may get some agreement from the parasite class, but folks who work in the productive part of the economy know better and disagree.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 13th, 2011
6:03 am
Tick Tock! Change is inevitable.
—————–
November 2010 speaks volumes to that point. Time to eat your peas, Democrats!
Sobelle
July 13th, 2011
6:22 am
What these comments sound like to me is exactly what’s going on in Washington. Just a bunch of foolish men arguing about whose toy is the best. If you don’t play my way, then I’ll take my toy and go home. When grown men begin to act like adults, then maybe our government will be running the way it was originially set up to run. As to Obama, I didn’t vote for him, but he IS our president and we should not be acting like the middle-easterners who are trying to throw out a dictator. There should be a certain amount of respect for the office of the presidency, there should be a certain amount of respect for we senior citizens who have worked hard most of our lives, paid in the system and now need assistance from our government in paying us what we paid in already. I have lived under 12 presidents, Obama being #13, and I don’t think I have ever seen as much contention going on as is now. In regard to the tea party, my prediction is they will be the ruination of our wonderful country as we know it. They are like bratty kids who just moved in on the block and are trying to take over. Someone needs to remind them that this country is free and is for everyone alike. Go ahead radicals, throw us under the bus and see who comes out to vote next time!
Ayn Rant
July 13th, 2011
7:11 am
It’s a silly “plan”. but go for it. It’ll allow the economy to limp along until November when the voters will set the Republicant charlatans back to the “minority” party in both houses of Congress.
Mongo
July 13th, 2011
7:31 am
@Kyle:”At some point, you have to be for something. Why aren’t Reid & Co. being branded the “Senate Majority of No”?”
You seem to be forgetting the 200+ filibusters the Senate Republicans have used to block jobs bills and everything else that would help the economy for the past 2 years.. How convenient.
Carlosgvv
July 13th, 2011
8:51 am
McConnell did not get this far in politics by being a dummy. If Obama warns that SS checks might not go out and scares 70 million people, McConnell knows he will come out smelling like a rose if he rides to the rescue and comes up with a solution.
A voice of reason
July 13th, 2011
8:54 am
Not quite following how the top 2% are not making a sacrifice… they already pay far more than half of total income tax. How is fair, then, to raise taxes on them even more?
A voice of reason
July 13th, 2011
8:56 am
Really Mongo? In what way is spending money we don’t have going to help the economy?
So many idiots, not enough poets
July 13th, 2011
9:11 am
OMG, this is exactly why I stopped voting after I helped GW get elected the first time. One of the top 3 leaders of the GOP basically recommends handing the keys to Obama, (in essence giving up) and the sheep immediately come out with the Obozo, Obummer, Idiot Messiah bleets. LOL. Wake up little sheep, your party is retreating from the very “idiot” you are chastising. BOTH sides are equally responsible for mess we are in, and BOTH sides will have to work together to get out. Not sure who the dumba$$ was that made the Hitler reference regarding compromise, but I have to admit, that made me laugh. I haven’t heard anything that stupid since someone tried to convince me that elected officials actually care about us.
GT
July 13th, 2011
9:12 am
There are public companies like maybe a Lowe’s that tend more to running a good business and let the stock price fall where it may. Then there is Home Depot that eyes its stock price and cuts cost to show profit on the bottom line. Stock prices momentarily rise until the customer service becomes so bad they have to fire the chairman. In Mitch McConnell plan the real problem is it is not sincere. When you have to think too much as you do here, you are trying to hide the true you and there is no natural way to do that. The Republican doesn’t care about what they talk about they are just trying to get elected, hook or crook. In their grandstanding they may shipwreck this country. The one thing we have going for us in this country is Obama. He is dancing to his own music and not trying to keep beat with someone else’s agenda. He is a quick thinker something we have not had in the White House for a while. He also more middle of the road, not the liberal the flakes on the right try to paint him. The middle America recognizes this and he has strong support there, more and more as this insanity goes to market. The real liberals are not happy with our president but it is the devil or the deep blue sea for them. It is time the Republicans round up their nutballs and start leading this country from the middle too. The tail is wagging their dog.
1961_Boomer
July 13th, 2011
9:23 am
Personally, I’d rather see tax hikes than to let Obama rack up another $2 trillion in debt before attempting… again… to reign in spending. This is crazy. Do you let your spouse go out and rack up another $5k in debt so that you can say the credit card problem is her’s? No… because you still have to deal with it as a family. The Government credit card belongs to everyone and the debt will remain long after Obama is a footnote in American history. Since there are no obvious signs of debt all around us, a political stunt like “trying to pin the debt on Obama” is foolhardy. McConnell is a dumbassss
Frederick M. Luper
July 13th, 2011
9:38 am
I’m no constitutional scholar, but I always understood that Congress and not the President had the responsibility of appropriating and spending money. Doesn’t this proposal do violence to Separation of Powers?
poker face....
July 13th, 2011
10:00 am
i am far from being a bleeding liberal or a huge obama fan, but he called the repugs bluff and they backed down. he offered them a package that would reduce spending and end tax loopholes to the tune of 83% cuts and 17% revenue, and they balked. these are the same numbers the the repugs were tossing around a few months ago. just shows they are not serious about deficit reduction.
you have to have new revenue sources to cut the deficit. reagan did it, bush 1 did it.
the repugs are beholden to the right wing nut jobs who want to slash and burn, unless of course you are michelle bachmann sucking of the medicare and ag subsidies teets…..”slash and burn for the people who are not whitey rich folks”
kudos obama, well played
Lynnie Gal
July 13th, 2011
10:01 am
Now that the Republicans have dug themselves into a hole by being obstinate about the debt ceiling, the true masters of the party–Wall Street, millionaires and billionaires (who use Republicans to assure they won’t pay a dollar more in taxes,) are cracking the whip against McConnell’s back and forcing the lamebrains in the teahouse back into the asylum, locking them there until they unleash their wild eyed ravings next year. The real masters of the party will not allow the crazies to cause a default, that’s very clear now. And, it’s clear to swing voters now that what David Brooks said, that “Republicans are not fit to govern” is correct.
JF McNamara
July 13th, 2011
10:04 am
Its a poor idea, but what option do Republicans have that’s better? They have two options. Sign a deal with tax increases or default on the debt.
They are at a negotiating table but they don’t have anything they can give up, because their base is so rabid about not doing anything. They made a big deal out of this, so now Obama can’t just give them some gift cuts and he won’t do a small deal because he doesn’t want this to be a long running theme. They aren’t actually dumb enough to drive the country off of a cliff, and they severely overplayed their hand.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2011
10:21 am
I heard Barry say yesterday something to the effect of we need to get this deal done and fix our budget, so that we can get on with investing in our future.
Translation: We need to get something on paper that seems to settle the issue, and then when no one is paying attention, I can go back to spending money to make this a more “fair” economy.
The libs don’t get it that the tax revenue increases are designed so they can continue spending, they have no intention of shrinking government, just changing where the money is spent.
Mitch’s plan B would just allow Barry to cut defense and move the money to more entitlements.
Rafe Hollister
July 13th, 2011
10:26 am
Michelle Backman made the point the other day that Cons need to quit falling for this Democrat term cuts to the budget. She said that these are not cuts in spending they are cuts in projections of future spending. None of the “cuts” will take effect anytime soon, so they do not offer an immediate remedy.
I’m afraid that since the Dems have a history of smoke and mirror projections, that the GOP is going to fall for the same trick they played on Reagan. He gave them the tax increases but the “cuts in spending” never were implemented. Fool us once as the saying goes.
joe
July 13th, 2011
11:05 am
Posed this on Jamie’s blog:
I personally like Sen. Mitch McConnell’s suggestion where Obama could request “and likely secure — increases of up to $2.5 trillion in the government’s borrowing authority in three separate installments over the next year.”
Basically that is putting this decision in Obama’s hands and would allow GOP to say they tried everything to stop him, but he was the one who ultimately raised it, which the majority of US citizen taxpayers do not want…and thus, adding one more HUGE reason to vote him out in 2012. As the saying goes, give him enough rope…and you know the rest.
DawgDad
July 13th, 2011
11:38 am
Us “insane” tea party types are not in favor of gimmiks or other legislative sleight of hand, we want to see clear, straight-up fiscal responsibility and limited government. If I can’t understand the deal, or can’t read the bill until it’s passed, it’s a bad idea, period.
On the economy, Obama and the Democrats are political enemies. Their socialist/fascist policies and actions have harmed this nation and my family. I expect the GOP to shoot plain and straight, stand firm for the core values of their base, and let the voters judge for themselves who’s looking out for America.
Republicans voting for corporate sweetheart protectionist light bulb standards that compromise the free market (and plain common sense) does not sit well with me, either. The targeted $85 in annual household savings (chuckle) will cost the party $100 in annual contributions from this household.
First Sergeant
July 13th, 2011
2:11 pm
joe
July 13th, 2011
11:05 am
“As the saying goes, give him enough rope…and you know the rest.”
The Repugs have tried undermining the Obama administration this whole term, and has made themselves look very bad in the eyes of the American people. When will you and your party get it. Our President and his administration will continue to outwit those (Repugs) who want to bring harm to our country.
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Kyle Wingfield
July 19th, 2011
11:52 am
[...] trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about [...]
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Hawaii News
July 19th, 2011
3:58 pm
[...] $9 trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about which [...]
2012 Tuesday: The presidential politics of the debt ceiling fight | Delaware News
July 19th, 2011
4:14 pm
[...] $9 trillion plan Sen. Tom Coburn outlined Monday, probably not Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plan, possibly the $3.7 trillion plan the “Gang of Six” senators unveiled today (and about which [...]