The debt-ceiling deadline gets an extension
It turns out that the Obama’s administration’s self-imposed Aug. 2 deadline for reaching a debt-ceiling deal isn’t as drop-dead as we’ve been told. From the New York Times:
Thanks to an inflow of tax payments and maneuvering by the Treasury Department, the government can probably continue to pay all of its bills for several days after Aug. 2, providing potentially critical breathing room for Congress to raise the debt ceiling, according to estimates by several Wall Street banks and a Washington research organization.
The consensus is that the government will not run short of money until Aug. 10, when it would be unable to cut millions of Social Security checks without borrowing more money.
Note that, while some of us have observed in the past that the Treasury could continue making interest payments on the debt and meet its obligations on Social Security and essential defense even past Aug. 2, this report is talking about continuing to pay all the bills after Aug. 2.
Having a few extra days is no bad thing, given that House Republicans don’t want to pass Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan and that their own plan is is as much as 30 percent less effective than advertised.
It would be nice to have a GOP that is not just vocal about cutting spending but also competent at writing bills that, you know, cut spending. (Sigh.)
– 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
227 comments Add your comment
Jefferson
July 27th, 2011
3:18 pm
Look here Dick Tracey, I’m no member of any party. You are a self proclaimed know it all, who don’t really know it all. And your breath stinks.
Jefferson
July 27th, 2011
3:20 pm
Where was that original idea OJW, Huh.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:23 pm
It does not matter how many times previous presidents raised the debt ceiling.
It does not matter how many times you go to the store. It matters how much money you spend.
Bush raised the debt ceiling by a maximum of $984 B & a total of $5.365 T in 6 yrs. (wasn’t raised until ‘02).
Obama has & is raising the debt ceiling by a maximum of $2.4 T & a total of $5.379 T in 29 months.
Obama broke Bush’s record by raising it by $1.9 T & will break his own record with $2.4 T.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
3:23 pm
Obozo spent $800 billion and unemployment went UP!
Fail.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:26 pm
The cost of the “unfunded” wars has always been on the books.
John Konop
July 27th, 2011
3:26 pm
When interest rates go up (tax increase on everyone) economy goes down further, all of you can give people like Erick Erickson a big thank you. You are holding out for the meaningless HOUSE GOP plan which does not deal with entitlements or military spending over the gang of 6 plan which does? Ron Paul is right you guys are selling lies! Why would you do this Erick?
……Erickson blogged Monday that he’s been receiving “call after call from members of the United States Congress” but did not reveal the names of any such callers. He wrote that he could not offer “absolution” to members seeking to make any debt ceiling compromise…….
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60027_Page2.html#ixzz1TKnFEUW8
THE TRUTH:
Ron Paul Shreds “Cut, Cap, And Balance”, And Basically Calls House Leaders Liars
……….First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare. This is impossible. These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually. This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget. Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.
Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending. America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington’s sacred cows– including defense contractors and entitlements. All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year. To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.
Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a “Global War on Terror” to justify exceptions to its spending caps. Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless. Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars………..
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-slams-cut-cap-and-balance-2011-7#ixzz1TKqKR4kx
MrLiberty
July 27th, 2011
3:33 pm
Before we start throwing around statements like “defense is something actually mentioned in the Constitution” as an excuse not to cut the massively bloated Pentagon budget, we should first discuss the term DEFENSE.
What the Pentagon spends money on is not DEFENSE. It spending money on the promotion of the empire abroad. Afghanistan is not about defense, but about securing an oil pipeline from the Caspian for Shell Oil (and other geopolitical/corporatism reasons). Iraq is not about defense. Pakistan is not about defense and neither is Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, or the dozens of other countries the CIA and our drones are killing innocents in. Our 1000+ bases all over the globe, along with the troops, etc. are not about defense, but about political and financial payoffs for our “friends” both in corrupt governments and the military industrial complex.
The money needed to actually DEFEND this country is quite minimal compared to what we give the Pentagon and claim is for “defense.” It is high time that those who wrap themselves in the flag and call everyone who wishes to cut military spending wake up and realize that there is a HUGE difference between what we spend on the empire and what we really need to defend a republic.
And as an additional note, it is not always a necessity for others to purchase our debt in order to grow our debt. That is the purpose of the Federal Reserve. Rather than print bonds that the Chinese or other sucker nations purchase, the Fed can and has been just printing money out of thin air and buying the treasury bonds themselves.
Ron Paul correctly has identified that about 1.2 Trillion of this debt is just that. Money that is owed to the criminals at the Fed – with interest. He has suggested just cancelling these bonds, destroying them, and cancelling the debt. That would of course give us another 1.2 Trillion before we hit the debt ceiling again, but would provide time to really work on a cutting plan without so much pressure. It would also have the added benefit of basically nullifying this criminal and enabling behavior of the Fed who would likely never again be willing to purchase more treasury debt.
Jefferson
July 27th, 2011
3:34 pm
The real bottom line fact is the President is Obama, and if he wins re-election the pissin’ and moanin’t from this group will be a funny thing every day. If he loses, someone else will be President. Until then , huh.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:40 pm
Bart@1:20, We were not “beginning to pay down our debt…” The national debt has not decreased since 1957. Regardless of the parties of the president & the legislature, regardless of the tax rates & regardless of budget “surpluses,” the national debt has increased every year.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
We have a chronic spending problem.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
3:52 pm
“The cost of the “unfunded” wars has always been on the books”
Are you talking about the war in Iraq, which we did not enter into until George W. Bush sought approval from the Senate, and received “Yes” votes from both our current president, Barack Hussein Obama, and or current Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who were both serving in the Senate at the time? Or are you talking about Libya, which we entered soley on the direction of a defiant Barack Hussein Obama, seeking no senate approval or legal authority? Or are you talking about Afghanistan, which Obama has always described as the just and necessary war?
By the way, president Obama has had nearly three years now to end any or all of those wars. Just FYI.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
3:53 pm
“Where was that original idea OJW, Huh.”
Same question to you, sweetie.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:55 pm
Bart@2:59, Did you forget the mega gazillions that the fed. govt. passed along to the states (the reason 26 states are suing the fed. govt.)?
What were the figures that Medicare & Medicaid were to cost? The fed. govt. really needs another health care debacle. Maybe we’ll figure out how to manage & pay for the ones we already have.
Hope Obamacare works out better then Obamanomics.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
3:58 pm
“kaeth
July 27th, 2011
2:39 pm
“is the definition of a “lib” someone that simply doesn’t agree with the tea party?
because i see the “libs” writing detailed and thoughtful responses and the conservatives making fun of them and writing off their claims without much evidence. i have to say if i was coming into this blind, they’d win the argument simply for coherency.”
Without much evidence? Really? I guess you overlooked the FACTS I posted, regarding the national debt trend over the last 20 years, the facts about President Obama lowering taxes, the facts about the wars, etc.
Do you know what a fact is?
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
4:01 pm
“Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
2:59 pm
“Congressional Budget Office: The health care law is projected to REDUCE deficits by $124 billion over 2010-2019. Repealing the health care law would INCREASE the deficit by $119 billion from 2012 to 2019 and increase them even more”
In all seriousness…surely you don’t actually BELIEVE this nonsense?
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
4:02 pm
In 2.5 years, including the two years they controlled all three branches of federal government, have the Democrats even OFFERED a budget?
MrLiberty
July 27th, 2011
4:06 pm
How can any of you defend the economic performance of either democrat or republican presidents or either party-controlled congresses???
The last time our Federal Government was virtually debt free was under Andrew Jackson. While a democrat, this was back when the democrats actually respected the constitution, still stood for limited government, and hadn’t been overtaken and destroyed by the progressives of the late 1800’s. In addition to helping wipe out virtually all of our debt, he also put a stake in the heart of our second Central Bank (the equivalent of the Federal Reserve). He correctly saw the destructive power of having such a criminal organization, the debt they saddled the american public with, and refuse to reauthorize their charter. What followed (aside from the horrible war that Lincoln basically intiated) was the most prosperous period of time in our nation’s history. The gold standard that backed the dollar actually led to an increase in the value of money during the last half of the century. All that ended with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Thanks to them, FDR’s confiscation of american’s gold (and revaluation from $20 to $35 and ounce overnight), and Nixon’s complete severing of the gold link in 1973, we are doomed to perpetual debt unless we can rid ourselves of the Federal Reserve and all of the economic destruction it causes and enables.
Jefferson
July 27th, 2011
4:07 pm
But the tar baby, he don’t say nothin;\’
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
4:09 pm
“How can any of you defend the economic performance of either democrat or republican presidents or either party-controlled congresses???”
The past is done. The question is, basically, are we gonnna give Obama another book of blank checks?
Linda
July 27th, 2011
4:11 pm
A balanced budget amendment is the only way we might be able to prevent the Fed. Reserve from buying our debt, printing more money out of thin air, causing inflation.
The U.S. Federal Reserve gave out $16.1 trillion in emergency loans to U.S. and foreign financial institutions between Dec. 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010, according to figures produced by the government’s first-ever audit of the central bank.
Last year, the gross domestic product of the entire U.S. economy was $14.5 trillion.
Of the $16.1 trillion loaned out, $3.08 trillion went to financial institutions in the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, France and Belgium, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) analysis shows.
Additionally, asset swap arrangements were opened with banks in the U.K., Canada, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Mexico, Singapore and Switzerland. Twelve of those arrangements are still ongoing, having been extended through August 2012.
Out of all borrowers, Citigroup received the most financial assistance from the Fed, at $2.5 trillion. Morgan Stanley came in second with $2.04 trillion, followed by Merill Lynch at $1.9 trillion and Bank of America at $1.3 trillion.
The audit also found that the Fed mostly outsourced its lending operations to the very financial institutions which sparked the crisis to begin with, and that they delegated contracts largely on a no-bid basis. The GAO report recommends new policies that would eliminate such conflicts of interest, and suggests that in the future the Fed should keep better records of their emergency decision-making process.
The Fed agreed to “strongly consider” the recommendations, but as it is not a government-run institution it cannot be forced to do so by lawmakers. The seven-member board of governors and the Fed chairman are, however, appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.
The audit was conducted on a one-time basis, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year. Fed officials had strongly discouraged lawmakers from ordering the audit, claiming it may serve to undermine confidence in the monetary system.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
4:18 pm
OJW – “The past is done. The question is, basically, are we gonnna give ANY PRESIDENT another book of blank checks?”
Figured I’d fix that for you.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
It’s the spending, libtards:
http://cnnmoney.mobi/primary/_osVJFo-i6ld3hJwAC
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
4:23 pm
Not to rain on the insult parade, but has anyone given any consideration as to what the course of action will be should a Republican President ask for a debt ceiling increase in 2013? Or are we simply assuming that all the economic problems this country has will magically disappear if Obama is defeated in 2012?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
4:25 pm
Here’s the pretty chart that illustrates that it’s the spending, libtards:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/27/news/economy/debt_ceiling_fight/
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
4:27 pm
LBB – “Here’s the pretty chart that illustrates that it’s the spending, libtards:”
Great, when you get done insulting the sheep, why don’t you try and answer my question?
Eat the rich
July 27th, 2011
4:30 pm
Oh woe is us. The best proposal I’ve heard so far reduces spending about $4T over the next 10 years, most of that in the last few years. By then we’ll be more than $25T in debt and probably in default.
Paper money will soon be next to worthless, think a basketful to buy a loaf of bread. Best thing is to buy guns and ammo now and go get soem of the people who did this to us. Most of them hang out in NYC and DC.
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
4:34 pm
Hmmmm…..Apparently when posed a serious question as to what may happen down the road, the party faithful go silent. Given the myopic vision of partisan supporters on both sides, I can sadly say I’m not surprised.
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
4:39 pm
Since obviously OJW and LBB have all the answers, I’ll pose this question again directly to them:
“Has anyone given any consideration as to what the course of action will be should a Republican President ask for a debt ceiling increase in 2013? Or are we simply assuming that all the economic problems this country has will magically disappear if Obama is defeated in 2012?”
Linda
July 27th, 2011
4:45 pm
Fletch@4:23, If Obama is defeated & a Rep. president asks for a debt ceiling increase, we should expect the Dems. to do exactly the same thing that they did in ‘06. They ALL voted against it, including Obama. That was when the request was $850 B, compared to the $2.4 T Obama has requested. That was when the current ceiling was $8.184 B.
USMC
July 27th, 2011
4:46 pm
Are we surprised?
Barry Obama doesn’t know the TRUTH!
The man is full of LIES!
Linda
July 27th, 2011
4:48 pm
Eat@4:30, Guns & ammo? It might be better to replace your paper money with something you will really need. I suggest toilet paper. It might trade better at Kroger.
Karen
July 27th, 2011
4:49 pm
USMC, the truth as you see it. But your opinion couldnt buy a cup of coffee at Mc D’s. Your a narrow minded person and that my friend is the rest of the story.
The truth
July 27th, 2011
4:52 pm
maybe if everything crashes, red neck ignorant people like “Lil’ Barry Bailout” and many other WHITE people will quit voting these Republicans in office..2 senseless wars that the rich decided they will not pay for, is the real reason why America is about to crash!…Most red necks make no where near $200,000 and are in debt with credit cards and students loans, but when it is time to vote, they are so brainwashed that they vote for who they think will dog the poor out more!…I will be so happy when the “RED NECKS” are dead so this country can progress!
The truth
July 27th, 2011
4:58 pm
@Linda
just admit, YOU CAN”T HANDLE HAVING A BLACK PRESIDENT!…
Jimmy62
July 27th, 2011
5:08 pm
Fletch: I suppose it depends. If he asks to raise the debt ceiling, but has also made considerable, real, and measurable cuts to spending, then he might be able to get a raise in the debt ceiling. But if he does all those things, he wouldn’t need to raise the debt ceiling. If it turns out he’s another big spender with no real intention of reigning it in, he’ll get busted by conservatives.
People like to ask where the Tea Party was when Bush was spending a lot. Well there was this group called Porkbusters that had a lot of traction with conservatives. And if you look back at the uproar from conservatives over medicare part d and TARP, you’ll see that conservatives were upset about Bush’s spending, too. Liberals, and thus most major media outlets, ignored all this.
Jimmy62
July 27th, 2011
5:10 pm
The Truth: So you want everyone that disagrees with you to die? You left wingers are all such happy, tolerant people.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
5:11 pm
truthy@4:58, Do you still ask strangers what their signs are, in an effort to strike up a conversation? Your lines are stale. Get with it, Man! Get rid of your bell bottoms & polyester pants!
Maybe you failed to notice that the president is GREEN. That’s all he talks about (except for fat cats & oil company CEOs flying around on corporate jets smaller than his). All I want is a red, white & blue president.
A little confused...
July 27th, 2011
5:27 pm
Outlaw Josey Wales- “Are you talking about the war in Iraq, which we did not enter into until George W. Bush sought approval from the Senate, and received “Yes” votes from… our current president, Barack Hussein Obama…”
—————————————————————
I think you are confused. Last time I checked the Iraq war vote started in 2003. Barack Hussein Obama as you mention above was not a United States Senator until 2005. If you are talking about the vote to supply troops, then yes he did vote for that. However, that is not what you stated.
Also I believe you said our current president decided to extend the bush tax cuts. While this is true, that was because certain members of Congress I’m sorry to say were voting down bills like the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, among others until their demands to extend the Bush tax cuts had been met.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
5:36 pm
Fletch: has anyone given any consideration as to what the course of action will be should a Republican President ask for a debt ceiling increase in 2013?
———————–
I assume it will be increased, just as it will be this time. Why do you ask?
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
5:38 pm
Fletch, are you advocating that we balance the budget immediately? That of course is what would be required if we decide not to raise the debt ceiling.
You either support balancing the budget, or raising the debt ceiling. Which is it?
Jack McFarland
July 27th, 2011
5:39 pm
Fletch is my blog crush. Good question.
Moderate Line
July 27th, 2011
5:50 pm
MrLiberty
July 27th, 2011
4:06 pm
How can any of you defend the economic performance of either democrat or republican presidents or either party-controlled congresses???
The last time our Federal Government was virtually debt free was under Andrew Jackson. While a democrat, this was back when the democrats actually respected the constitution, still stood for limited government, and
+++
He really respected the rights of those indians he moved to Oklahoma.
The glory days.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
5:52 pm
Fletch gave me all of seven minutes before he became erect over my failure to respond. It’s been twice that since I posed my question to him with no “response”. Do I need to look into Viagra?
carlosgvv
July 27th, 2011
5:56 pm
Gasp!!!!! Kyle, are you actually finally begining to see your beloved Republican party and it’s Tea Party nuts as they really are?
Moderate Line
July 27th, 2011
6:00 pm
I don’t think Obama has done a good job as president and believe there are Republicans running which would probably be better but if an extension is not produced before the government starts having to shut down things then the Republicans are going to be handing the election to Obama on a silver platter.
Defense 20%
Social Security 20$
Medicare 13%
Interest 12%
Everything else we have to be cut to serve those 4 things. So what are you going to cut to fund the VA, Federal Prisons, Air Traffic, Patent office, Border Patrol, Customs, Secret Service, FBI, CIA and ATF.
Lil' Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
6:05 pm
If the Democrat Senate and Obozo continue being the party of “no”, then the country will find out what the administration will cut.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
6:08 pm
Moderate@6:00, You still don’t understand what the credit rating agencies said. It’s not raising the debt ceiling. It’s the debt. It must be reduced by $4 T. Want me to quote?
MarkV
July 27th, 2011
6:21 pm
Linda @3:23 pm:
“Bush raised the debt ceiling by a maximum of $984 B & a total of $5.365 T in 6 yrs. (wasn’t raised until ‘02).
Obama has & is raising the debt ceiling by a maximum of $2.4 T & a total of $5.379 T in 29 months.
Obama broke Bush’s record by raising it by $1.9 T & will break his own record with $2.4 T.”
Bush inherited from Clinton a thriving economy. Obama inherited from Bush a country in depression.
The truth
July 27th, 2011
6:24 pm
Linda
July 27th, 2011
5:11 pm
Whatever, the truth is that AMERICA can not handle having a black president!.If George Bush was BLACK, he would have been killed!
F. Sinkwich
July 27th, 2011
6:29 pm
MarkV:
“Obama inherited from Bush a country in depression.”
Yawn. Not only is your assertion a lie, it gets so tiring hearing Bush! everytime someone criticizes your Messiah.
MarkV
July 27th, 2011
6:31 pm
What the stupid people whose only recipe I “cut the spending” do not realize is that the overwhelming majority of the money that the government spends goes to American people. Even if you do not agree with the purpose of the spending, the fact remains that if those people who are getting it do not receive the money, they will have less to spend, decreasing the demand and thus further hurt the economy. Even the liberals (and some Republicans), who demand cuts in defense spending (which I agree with), do not seem to realize that much of that money (not all, admittedly), goes to American people, soldiers, workers in munitions factories, etc.