The debt-ceiling deadline gets an extension

Yahtzee

July 27th, 2011
10:48 am

I’m starting to think that no one is serious about cutting our out of control spending. We may be heading into dark times…hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Jefferson

July 27th, 2011
10:49 am

Yea right. The GOP can’t pass their own plan in the house. Why do you support these clowns?

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
10:50 am

Kyle, since some in your party are convinced that there is more time and that a default wouldn’t be such a bad thing, if you were in charge of what gets paid and what does not would you be willing to list those outlays you would suspend? Can you be specific as to amounts and what programs? If not then just disregard this post.

Yahtzee

July 27th, 2011
10:52 am

The GOP already passed a plan last week. They are having trouble passing one this week, because the one Boehner has presented doesn’t cut enough…and to make matters worse, the Reid alternative actually cut less than the Boehner plan.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:01 am

Enter your comments here

jconservative

July 27th, 2011
11:11 am

“…list those outlays you would suspend?”

I will take the first shot at this if that is OK.

I would not cut payroll checks for late July or early August for all Federal elected officials. That is elected officials. I believe that would be all 535 members of Congress, the Vice President and the President. That is an monthly cost of $7,819,333. (someone check me on this)

But it is not just the money. It is the idea that do not pay those people who do not do their jobs. No work, no eat.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
11:12 am

Yahtzee, actually it is comical to watch the politicos squirm. The date of reckoning has arrived and they are having a tough time doing real cuts and adjustments. The “smaller government” Republicans are the most funny as they now have to live up to their pronouncements of the last 10 years. I have for several years, ever since the Bush years, wondered when the public would finally see the hypocrites for what they are, closet spenders of our money while telling us the opposite. As Bush raised the debt limit 9 times to the tune of $5+ trillion, not a peep out of the conservatives … and where was the Tea Party then. Funny how an elected Democrat and person of color can bring out the hypocrites in droves. So let’s enjoy it for what it’s worth, great political theater.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
11:18 am

I actually agreed with the Republicans on this when it first started but now they seem incompetent.

They can’t even come up with a plan that they all agree on. They have had since January to come up with something.

Plus you have Mica who has shutdown part of the FAA to stop $16.5 million on the subsidies for a few small airpots and to give airlines special union provisions. In doing so he is costing the government $200 million a day and costing thousands of jobs.

“So for three airports where their passengers are being paid a subsidy of $1,500 to $3,700 — at three airports — they’re closing down the FAA,” Mica said. “They’ve had it since last Wednesday, and they’ve sat on it.”

The extension ran on out on Friday and he blames the Senate for not caving into his demands on short notice. The Senate has passed a clean extenstion. In the meantime the FAA has laid off personel and put stop work orders on all the contracts. By law these contractors will have to be paid for all the equipment they have rented during this period of time so even with the tax not being collected the debt is going up.

http://www.faa.gov/news/media/workstop/

I have voted Republican in every presidential election. I have never been so disappointed in the Republican party in my life as I am with the potential debt ceiling fiasco and the FAA shutdown.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:20 am

Poetic justice as to the fact that their have been no radical left opinion blogs in the ajc after the most embarassing presidential speech in history. If I was an obama supporter I would be embarassed and puzzled as well……as a conservative I have known who and what this guy is about since 2008. There has been a plan passed by republicans in the house and it’s the only one that meets the standards to maintain our AAA credit rating. Jefferson, that is a fact. The libs in the senate will not even debate the very thing that will put us on a road to actually fixing this problem. Jefferson, that is a fact. Be honest……this guy you support has no clue what he is doing. I hope he keeps talking like he did the other night, b/c he is creating republican votes in droves. The far left is on the way out…..enjoy libs

Yahtzee

July 27th, 2011
11:20 am

“Funny how an elected Democrat and person of color can bring out the hypocrites in droves. So let’s enjoy it for what it’s worth, great political theater.”

I agree that Bush and the Republicans that controlled congress from 2001-2006, went on a spending binge. But since the dems took control of congress in 2007, the spending binge has gotten more out of control. How it is so easy for dems to continually blame Bush for his spending woes, and not even acknowledge that what the current administration and the last 4 years of dem controlled congress has done in terms of spending is absolutely atrocious.

Funny how the only ones avoiding the issues and injecting race into the conversation are those on the left.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:22 am

Retiredds and Moderate line,
Do either of you support a balanced budget amendment? That is the fix…..do you support that?

Jack McFarland

July 27th, 2011
11:27 am

Get rid of both parties. The only way to see any real “change” is for a third party option. Both parties are just alike. They both are owned by corporations and their preservation of power. They are all wealthy, and could care less about the little guy. The Democrats scream raising taxes on the rich (since that includes congress, are you going to pay more? Or are you just talking out of your can?), and the Republicans just woke up to the outrageous spending after they spent like drunken sailors for years. And neither party wants certain cuts because the lobbyists are the real people calling the shots behind this.

And the sheep on both sides of the aisle treat this like a gun fight at the old saloon.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
11:33 am

jconservative

July 27th, 2011
11:11 am
“…list those outlays you would suspend?”

I will take the first shot at this if that is OK.

I would not cut payroll checks for late July or early August for all Yahtzee

July 27th, 2011
10:48 am
I’m starting to think that no one is serious about cutting our out of control spending. We may be heading into dark times…hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
++++
Since 2000 Defense spending has gone up 237%
Medicare 229%
The overall budget 193%.
The budget without medicare and defense 178%.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:35 am

Retiredds,
This does not require a political solution, this requires an economic solution and the only serious plan that solves this problem did originate from the Tea Party end of the spectrum. Instead of wasting time on the tea party and race(textbook lib 101 race play, so nice job!), why not focus on the actual problem and an actual fix to it. Once again, the only plan passed by any house of congress that cuts spending, caps spending, and offers a balanced budget amendment is from the republicans……the libs will not even discuss it, so whose fault is that?

Yahtzee

July 27th, 2011
11:36 am

Under the Obama Administration, our national debt has increased 40%

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:37 am

I love exposing libs and their ways…..it’s fun Kyle and quite easy……

Karen

July 27th, 2011
11:38 am

Well you dont cut spending in the middle of an economic crisis. You spend to help create jobs and almost anyone knows that fact, except Boehner and Kyle. Birds of a feather.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
11:40 am

Yahtzee, oh come on now. You and I both know that the responsibility for the debt problem fall squarely on both parties. If you go back to the Reagan years and move forward the split is almost even. And, quite frankly, if we fall into the trap that it’s the other guy’s fault then that is just a cop out. If the Republicans and Democrats and their supporters would just “fess up” and claim (yes claim) responsibility for this mess, we might get a real (not smoke and mirrors) solution. Already each side has made several proposals, none of which do what they say it will do, cut the deficit and debt. Remember the debt is cumulative and the interest on the debt is cumulative as well. The debt and its interest component have been growing for the last 30-40 years so forget that it’s just the tax and spend Dems, it is the borrow and spend Rebubs as well.

I come down harder on the Republicans because we know that Democrats would rather tax and spend, that’ not news. But the R’’s have been telling us since Reagan that they are for smaller government and less spending, but the real hard numbers record speaks otherwise. So, let’s all stop playing games with blaming and hold the politicos from BOTH parties responsible.

As an aside, I have voted mostly Democrat, over my 51 years of eligibility of voting, but on many occasions have voted Republicans for various reasons, most of them being the promise of fiscal responsibility (a lie). I first recommended a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to my representatives in Washington, both Democrat and Republican, in the 1980’s. I got nice form letters in response telling me how they were going to cut spending but that they did not think a balanced budget amendment was the way to go. They, both Dems and Repubs, just wanted me to trust them. Well, finally the Repubs lay one on the table. But, quite frankly, I don’t believe them because they know it won’t pass. So again the R’s lay out something they know won’t happen. And why, VOTES. It looks good. They can come home and tell us (lie to us) that they proposed a balanced budget amendment but it didn’t pass (and they know that now, it won’t pass). So why bother, VOTES. Well, I’m done with them. Since the Bush spending years (and his VP stating publicly that deficits don’t matter), I will not believe a word regarding balanced budgets or reducing the debt until I see it happen for real. I’ll give them 10 years to prove themselves. I’m betting they will fail. And that failure will be our failure as well.

wallbanger

July 27th, 2011
11:44 am

This country has been on a spending binge for far too long. If those credit ratings have any meaning at all they must cut our credit rating no matter what they do in Washington now. How on earth can we, with a straight face, advocate for a higher debt ceiling without working out spending cuts? That is like asking for a rise in your VISA credit limit, when you are already defaulting or paying the minimum on your balance. It is just idiocy.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:44 am

Karen,
You do spend to help create jobs in a system of central gov’t planning which the soviets were quite fond of running…….is that what you mean?

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
11:46 am

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:22 am
Retiredds and Moderate line,
Do either of you support a balanced budget amendment? That is the fix…..do you support that?
++++++++++++
I have always supported a balance budget.

Road Scholar

July 27th, 2011
11:50 am

Kyle, how can you even think to use “Competent” and “GOP” in a sentence?

Bilybob: If you were a Pres. Obama supporter…hell would freeze over!

Why not cut 10% of ALL Department’s budget/appropriations across the board to cut spending. I bet the administrators know what has value/programs that are needed. and, legislators need not call to affect the cuts. Add no federal raises, cancel the legislators health insurance..they can buy it like everyone else. Cancel any retirement monies for legislators…you were elected not hired!

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
11:54 am

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:35 am
Retiredds,
This does not require a political solution, this requires an economic solution and the only serious plan that solves this problem did originate from the Tea Party end of the spectrum. Instead of wasting time on the tea party and race(textbook lib 101 race play, so nice job!), why not focus on the actual problem and an actual fix to it. Once again, the only plan passed by any house of congress that cuts spending, caps spending, and offers a balanced budget amendment is from the republicans……the libs will not even discuss it, so whose fault is that?
++++
The plan put a cap at 18% of GDP which we have not met since 1966. As someone who has has NEVER voted Democrat for president that is not a serious effort but just a political ploy. Where was this during the Bush years? Suddenly, the Republicans are in and they want to balance the budget. lol

Chris D.

July 27th, 2011
11:54 am

According to President Obama America is made up of 60 States, of which he has personally visted 57. I say we get Obama to identify those extra 10 states no one else seems to realize exist and then get THEM to pay their fair share…Surely no one has collected incomes taxes, payroll taxes for maybe as long as a 100 years. Imagine how much they owe? Probably balance the deficit with tall their back payments?

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
11:57 am

Road Scholar

July 27th, 2011
11:50 am
Kyle, how can you even think to use “Competent” and “GOP” in a sentence?

Bilybob: If you were a Pres. Obama supporter…hell would freeze over!

Why not cut 10% of ALL Department’s budget/appropriations across the board to cut spending. I bet the administrators know what has value/programs that are needed. and, legislators need not call to affect the cuts. Add no federal raises, cancel the legislators health insurance..they can buy it like everyone else. Cancel any retirement monies for legislators…you were elected not hired!
+++++
That would cut spending less than seven percent because Social Security and medicare are about 32% of spending. Plus the Republicans will never cut defense so now you are down to 5%. However, it would be a good first start.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
11:58 am

Retiredds,
Your inference on the BBA being about votes b/c they know it can’ts pass. Here’s one question….Why won’t reid bring it up for a vote in the senate? Because he knows it will probably pass because the public overwhelmingly supports it…..This shows reid isn’t interested in actually solving an issue, he and obama are playing pure politics with this situation. Instead of bagging on the republicans, maybe you should be asking why reid will not have a vote on it and maybe that would lead to actually having a vote on it and that might lead to it actually passing and then……….the problem you say you have with dems and repubs(spending) within 5-10 years would actually go away sir…Big problem solved, (with money capped and limited) this would lead to less bribes and political payoffs and promises for votes(which no one likes) and many other types of things…..hear me now

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:06 pm

Moderate Line,
Bush is gone and our credit rating has not been in jeopardy until NOW. It’s too easy. The newly elected conservative in the house are LEADING on the problem and yes that want this amendment. Your answer to that is to lol and ignore the actual problem and fix…….Next

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
12:16 pm

I have an idea. Some might call it radical–

Pass a clean debt-ceiling increase!

Republican and Democratic Congresses have passed scores of clean debt ceiling increases for decades. The actual legislation is about four lines long, and they could have it on the President’s desk for his signature in less than an hour. Self-inflicted crisis averted.

Threatening to crash the economy on purpose, endangering our retirement accounts, making our jobs even less secure than they already are, undermining our national security, among other awful consequences, is probably the most asinine scheme that any American politician or group of American politicians have ever devised.

While I’m making radical suggestions, I have an idea about reducing the deficits…create jobs. More jobs would create taxpayers, thereby creating more revenue, and the deficit goes down. We’re talking about austerity when we should be talking about stimulus. Payroll tax cuts wouldn’t be the most effective tool available, but it would be a good start.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
12:21 pm

Billybob, Reid doesn’t bring it up because he knows it won’t pass. I’m not saying he wouldn’t do it if he could to buy votes. It won’t pass, period, whether you fantasize about it or not. As I mentioned above there are many of out here who have been in favor of a balanced budget amendment for many, many years. The buffoons we have representing us will not pass it. I have wanted a balanced budget amendment for one reason, and one reason only: it takes the income and spending equation out of the hands of the politicians. So please, don’t buy into the fabrication that the Repubs are for a balanced budget amendment. They, like their Democratic counterparts, enjoy too much the power of the purse. They won’t give that up without a fight. So the Republicans will vote on it because they know it won’t pass, period.

And about our credit rating, as I said above the debt and the interest on the debt is cumulative. This has been brewing for decades. Anyone who has an understanding of compound interest could see this coming. If you think it is just the last two years, while they have been bad, are the culprit you need to go back and take economics 101 and also read up on how interest compounds. Also, let us not forget that the last budget that Bush submitted and it was accepted was for $1.3 trillion deficit.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
12:25 pm

Oh my, this from CBS news:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced Wednesday morning that Senate Democrats’ plan to raise the debt ceiling would save the nation $2.2 trillion over the next ten years — $500 billion less than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed when he introduced the plan.

The news follows the CBO’s report late Tuesday that the House Republicans’ proposal also fell short of claims: The CBO said that plan, which is broken into two steps, would initially save only $850 billion over a decade, not the $1.2 trillion claimed by House Speaker John Boehner.

Seems like neither the Dems or the Repubs can get their numbers straight. I wonder why?

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
12:27 pm

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
Moderate Line,
Bush is gone and our credit rating has not been in jeopardy until NOW. It’s too easy. The newly elected conservative in the house are LEADING on the problem and yes that want this amendment. Your answer to that is to lol and ignore the actual problem and fix…….Next
++++
In your opinion I am ignoring the problem, even though I have supported balancing the budget even when Reagan was president long before the current conservatives found religion. Cantor was elected in 2001. Where was he when the debt ceiling was raised during Bush’s term. Where was Boehner? Bush is gone but these hypocrits remain “leading the charge” Westmorland 2005 and Bachmann 2003.

Do I really need to go through the entire list? It is suddenly convenient for these guys to support a balance budget. Also, the Dems supported when the Republicans were in charge.

NJ

July 27th, 2011
12:31 pm

The real problem still revolves around revenues. You do not need to cut the income tax rate to stop giving billions of dollars to corporations in subsidies. Many of these do not even pay corporate or other taxes in the US because of the code, but they are still given billions.

The fact is that the government does not even collect enough revenues to pay for all the costs associated with defense and so must borrow, often from Social Security to cover the results of the Bush Tax Cuts. If the tax cuts result in revenues being so low that they will not even cover Republican priorities, there is the problem

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
12:33 pm

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:06 pm
Moderate Line,
Bush is gone and our credit rating has not been in jeopardy until NOW. It’s too easy. The newly elected conservative in the house are LEADING on the problem and yes that want this amendment. Your answer to that is to lol and ignore the actual problem and fix…….Next
+++++
There are only 100 new Republicans in the house and senate out of 500+. Our credit ratings is only in jeopardy because the threat of debt ceiling not being passed in time so one could easily argue that if the Republicans had not been elected the credit rating would not be an issue.

M.E.

July 27th, 2011
12:35 pm

Yahtzee
July 27th, 2011
11:36 am
Under the Obama Administration, our national debt has increased 40%

Yes, because we finally did away with the hokey accounting of the Bush years, and added the cost of two unfunded wars to our national debt. Coveniently, you left that part out.

NJ

July 27th, 2011
12:38 pm

And of course the published budget does not accurately reflect the cost of defense. A method of excluding payroll tax revenues when calculating the percentages was created during the Vietnam War to make the cost of the war appear to be lower than it actually was.

Because Social Security is funded by a separate payroll tax, and law prohibits these funds from being mingled, they are not all counted when calculating how much each program takes up of what because Social Security Surpluses are immediately converted into Treasury Bonds and then this is moved into “General Revenues”

One of the best things we could do is treat Social Security like the Post Office. Have it be a complete, separate agency that runs off it’s own funds. The surpluses get invested. Since the current debt ceiling talks are about to make Treasuries a less sound investment (the reason the surpluses were required to be placed in Treasuries is that it was asserted that the US Treasury would ALWAYS be a sound investment).

At that point something interesting happens. The Republicans lose the actual revenue source that finances the current tax rates.

When you look at non trust fund based government programs, all other non defense discretionary spending like Education etc, makes up about 15 percent of government spending. The rest all goes for defense or business support

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:40 pm

” If you think it is just the last two years, while they have been bad, are the culprit you need to go back and take economics 101 and also read up on how interest compounds”
Never said or implied any of this and I can handle econ 101, you sound foolish….let’s stay on point. My point is that we have a group that is fighting for a BBA who are in congress, we do have people who are willing to pass it. That is where we START.

M.E.

July 27th, 2011
12:45 pm

Chris D.
July 27th, 2011
11:54 am
According to President Obama America is made up of 60 States, of which he has personally visted 57. I say we get Obama to identify those extra 10 states no one else seems to realize exist and then get THEM to pay their fair share…

First, Obama never said 60. Second, if you knew anything about American history, geography and politics, you would realize that the U.S. has 57 states and territories. Get over it already.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:47 pm

We have two kinds of people here today Kyle……one type that actually supports a plan that will, for once in a long time in DC, fix a serious problem…..and one type who just likes to blame people and say it can’t work and not focus on the problem or the fix……and then there is Moderate Line who suggest that if not for republicans we could keep our heads in the sand and continue to ignore the problem and pretend everything is ok……i choose the proactive stance of fighting for what is right and will work. Politics be damned……Most libs will not understand that last sentence….

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:48 pm

i miss cynthia tucker….

NJ

July 27th, 2011
12:48 pm

Yes, It is also conveniently forgotten that much of the Obama debt is also a result of compromises he had to make to get a few Republican votes. So when Republicans scream about the “Stimulus Package” they love to forget than about 40 percent of it was tax cuts.

Over the last three years, Obama has agreed to about 880 billion dollars in tax cuts, either by extending the Bush Tax Cuts two years longer, or just giving them as part of the stimulus package.

So far, the supply side Bush Tax Cut extension and the progressive Obama tax cuts, demand side, have done little to nothing to create jobs.

So when one thing proves itself to not be working, you definitely should be trying something else.

Raising the top marginal rate would do it. The rich would not actually pay the taxes. They would simply stop taking money as “personal income” and shift it into forms of income that are taxed at lower rates, like the long term capital gains rate. Either they could take income as personal income and pay 39.5 percent, OR take it as long term capital gains, and pay 15 or 20 percent depending on what the rates become. But by investing in in things that create jobs rather than taking personal income to buy a new yacht, the government uses a carrot/stick approach. You can hedge the bets that the wealthiest WILL use that money to create jobs.

The fallacy of the Republican argument is that ALL tax cuts are created equal. They are not. There is no way that a million dollar bonus to a corporate executive is going to be used to create jobs in his corporation, The suggestion that it could is a contradiction.

Republicans have also even distorted the supply side theory which says if tax rates are extremely high you can SOMETIMES increase government revenues by lowering the top tax rate. It also says there are times taxes are too low.

Republicans morphed this into ALL TAX CUTS ARE GOOD. When there is actually NO economic theory that asserts this.

Jefferson

July 27th, 2011
12:52 pm

Is there at least one (1) original idea or statement from a GOP supporter on this board ? Its all rehash of some neo con manifesto that just don’t work. Somebody — ?

Exit strategy

July 27th, 2011
12:53 pm

Maybe we should all just take the lead of Eric Cantor….

When Eric Cantor shut down debt ceiling negotiations last week, it did more than just rekindle fears that the U.S. government might soon default on its debt obligations — it also brought him closer to reaping a small financial windfall from his investment in a mutual fund whose performance is directly affected by debt ceiling brinkmanship.

Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
12:57 pm

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:47 pm
We have two kinds of people here today Kyle……one type that actually supports a plan that will, for once in a long time in DC, fix a serious problem…..and one type who just likes to blame people and say it can’t work and not focus on the problem or the fix……and then there is Moderate Line who suggest that if not for republicans we could keep our heads in the sand and continue to ignore the problem and pretend everything is ok……i choose the proactive stance of fighting for what is right and will work. Politics be damned……Most libs will not understand that last sentence….
++++
And your not blaming people. You are blaming all the people who disagree with you.

then there is Moderate Line who suggest that if not for republicans we could keep our heads in the sand and continue to ignore the problem and pretend everything is ok

Where have I said such a thing? Ridiculous. Is that the only way you can win an argument is by putting words in peoples mouth? That is being dishonest. I believe the debt is a real problem. I believe it is the most important problem we have long term. However, if the debt ceiling doesn’t pass it will also be a problem.

I repeat that I have supported a balance budget since Reagan longer than the current come to religion Republicans but that is sticking my head in the sand.

Don’t make up stuff and put words in peoples mouth.

NJ

July 27th, 2011
12:57 pm

Yes and the real answer lies in the fact that there is no way to actually cut enough to effect the debt and we cannot simply rely on increasing revenues to do so. The fact is the only way we can get out of this is to increase revenues and to cut spending.

But the fact is that Republicans play mix and match. Both Social Security and Medicare are based on a separate revenue stream that were created to pay for them. They both currently run surpluses. Republicans have basically been using the surpluses to give tax cuts or to offset revenues that would have come from income tax revenues. If you removed them from the reach of Republicans to borrow, we could then get an accurate idea of how to handle the debt for everything that does not have a dedicated revenue stream.

Another example. Infrastructure. It is paid for out of a trust fund based on excise taxes paid on automobile tires and gasoline, etc. But in this case it has not all been passed on for those purposes. It has generated surpluses which have been taken and used for other items.

There are 200 such trust funds based on dedicated taxes that are constantly raided to offset the need for other revenues to support defense, etc.

Everyone knows about the Social Security Surpluses. Republicans say they are not real, but the reason that are not real is that they have been invested in US Treasury Notes. To say they are not real is to say that the money we borrowed from China and spent is not real. They are real, but Republicans try to say they are not for a simple reason. They borrowed them with the promise that their economic ideas would make it possible to pay the money back. Their idea failed, but now they simply want to default on the loans they took out.

Billybob

July 27th, 2011
12:59 pm

NJ…..obama spending does not create jobs so let’s let him raise taxes to create jobs? I’m sure that will work……..earth to NJ, come in? Come in NJ……

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:00 pm

Question for the libs;

If we have a “revenue” problem, why did Obama/Pelosi/Reid choose to extend the Bush tax cust when they had a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, as well as total control of the House, and therefore could have imposed any tax code or structure of their choosing? And why did B. Hussein Obama reduce Social Security taxes by 33%?

Thanks in advance for your no-doubt brilliant and insightful responses.

Swami Dave

July 27th, 2011
1:01 pm

Bart

Because passage of “clean” debt ceiling increases has done nothing in the past, but lead to greater and greater deficit spending. As most of us know, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Based on current comparable numbers, were the federal government an average American household:

- They would have a annual income of $51K.

- They would have annual expenditures of $96K.

- They would have existing credit card debt of $356K

Your “clean” increase would be akin to seeking ANOTHER $61K in credit.

The alternative is that any future increases in the debt ceiling should have equivalent commitment to change the fiscal trajectory. Personally, I would rather see spending cuts (actual cuts year-over-year instead of the currently touted “cuts” that are merely reductions in rates of growth) in much more near terms (specifically within the scope and budgetary control of THIS Congress).

Frankly, a “clean” bill that simply allows continued increases in deficit spending is a non-starter. A bill that increases taxes is a non-starter because America’s taxpayers already pay too much as it is.

The solution (short-term and long-term) is a changing of the growth curve for size & scope of government and a changing of direction where dependency and redistribution are replaced by freedom and opportunity.

…..and THAT solution will begin addressing a multitude of our problems: debt, deficits, jobs, financial markets, income mobility, etc.

-SD

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:02 pm

” Republicans have basically been using the surpluses to give tax cuts or to offset revenues that would have come from income tax revenues. ”

Congrats to NJ for the funniest post of the day. Totally wrong, of course, but funny nonetheless…

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:05 pm

During the Bush administration, the libs were telling us that deficit spending was destroying our economy. Now, with Obama having doubled-down on deficit spending, the libs tell us it creates jobs.

Liberals are so funny.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:09 pm

Jefferson

July 27th, 2011
12:52 pm

“Is there at least one (1) original idea or statement from a GOP supporter on this board ? Its all rehash of some neo con manifesto that just don’t work. Somebody — ?”

This from a member of the party (Democrats) that extended the Bush tax cuts, reduced Social Security taxes by 1/3, and blames Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.

Liberals are so funny.

Swami Dave

July 27th, 2011
1:12 pm

Moderate Line

“There are only 100 new Republicans in the house and senate out of 500+. Our credit ratings is only in jeopardy because the threat of debt ceiling not being passed in time so one could easily argue that if the Republicans had not been elected the credit rating would not be an issue.”

Moodys has already stated that the credit rating of the United States will be at risk (and would have always been) based on the growing size of our debt as a ratio to GDP. Were Congress to have passed a “clean” debt ceiling increase (as was PrezBOs initial demand threatening veto) or not – our credit rating was at risk based on those sheer financial numbers.

By associating the debt ceiling increase to actual spending cuts (preferably in the nearer term under control of THIS Congress), the best chances for continuation of our current debt rating exist. Increases without fiscal controls or with gimmicked fiscal restraints will lead to the same outcome (greater debt & a lowering of the rating).

You are simply mistaken.

-SD

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:14 pm

“Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)”

With interest rates on treasury certificates at historic lows, it’s a good bet that they will eventually go up regardless of politics or other circumstances, so the fund described above is a good hedge position for any investor. And $1,000 to $15,000 won’t even buy a decebt used car any more. But, since liberals don’t take responsibility for planning and investing for their own retirement, instead preferring to rely on government to do their thinking/investing, they are easily confused and mis-lead by discussion of such simple concepts.

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
1:15 pm

Yahtzee @ 11:36 am:
What in the world are you talking about? The debt is a function of both spending and the revenues needed to cover the spending. If my wife loses her job, my debt will increase because my fixed obligations will remain until I do something about my fixed obligations (even if I keep spending the same or cut spending). What you GOP sympathizers never talk about is the increase in federal spending from one year to the next. From my research President Obama has increased spending but not at the rate of the past four presidents:

RWR – 2.6% average increase in spending from one year to the next over his term
GHWB – 2.1%
WJC – 1.5%
GWB – 3.8%
BHO – 1.65%

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
1:15 pm

I have a question for the “gubmint don’t create jobs”. I am curious as to why almost the entire GA delegation in Washington wants the “gubmint” to fund the deepening of the Savannah Port? It couldn’t be about the jobs it might create, would it? But I guess if the “gubmint” were to cough up several hundreds of millions of $$$$, and those $$$$ created jobs, they wouldn’t be real jobs because the “gubmint don’t” create jobs. And the GA delegation are mostly Republican last I looked. Now they can’t be asking for these $$$$ for the Savannah Port because they are for cutting spending, right?

I am happy to report that Republicans are no worse than Democrats at spending $$$$$$$$ all of those who post here, including me, (and running commensurate deficits, which get added into the nation’s debt and the interest on the debt).

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm

“RWR – 2.6% average increase in spending from one year to the next over his term
GHWB – 2.1%
WJC – 1.5%
GWB – 3.8%
BHO – 1.65%”

Since the stimulus/porkulus raised spending dramatically in Bush’s final year in office, that set the spending bar very high for Obama, hence the low increase presented in your statistics. But, those bailuts and stimulus were supposed to be one-time events, not precedent-steers to permanently raiset he bar on feederal budgets.

Nice try though.

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm

Swami Dave,

As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt despite the fact that the debt ceiling had been raised dozens of times before for decades. Then Bush became President.

In fact, the debt ceiling is a reflection of deficit and debt, not a cause. It’s not akin to seeking credit; it’s akin to agreeing to pay the bills on the budget that Congress already passed, including the Republican House.

For the record, had the Paul Ryan plan been enacted, the debt ceiling would still have to be raised…repeatedly. (If you sincerely care about reducing deficits, then take a look at the budget proposal from the House Progressive Caucus which balances the budget a decade before Ryan and friends.)

The amount of available credit is determined by lenders, not Congress. And lenders want to lend, as indicated by historically low interest rates on Treasury Bonds. Why? Because our federal government is the strongest and most liquid investment available. That is, assuming Congress doesn’t crash the economy on purpose.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:21 pm

Can’t type today…”not precedent-setters to permanently raise the bar on federal budgets.”

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
1:22 pm

Sorry, that should read, “… not at the rate of the last 3 GOP presidents.”

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:23 pm

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm

“Swami Dave,

As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt”

Completely, entirely, 100% false. A demonstrable lie. Thanks for repeating the usual lib talking points though.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:26 pm

Here’s the national debt by year, from the website of the United States Treasury. Maybe Bart Abel will tell us which year(s) we had a surplus and started paying the debt down. Or maybe not.

09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

Ayn Rant

July 27th, 2011
1:27 pm

An extension? Good! There’s still time to pass a clean debt ceiling raise, or better yet, eliminate the debt ceiling and get on with the real job of budgeting spending cuts and revenue increases.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:29 pm

National debt under 8 years of George W. Bush increased by $4.4 trillion, from $5.6 trillion to $10.0 trillion.

National debt has increased by $3.5 trillion IN JUST TWO YEARS under Barack Obama, from $10.0 trillion to $13.5 trillion.

What say you, libbies????

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:32 pm

“get on with the real job of budgeting spending cuts and revenue increases.”

Let’s call them tax increases, not revenue increases, shall we?

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:32 pm

Anybody seen Bart?

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
1:33 pm

Outlaw Josey Wales @ 1:20 pm:
Okay, I went back and checked my numbers. I deleted the increase in spending from President Bush’s last year in office and his 7 year average was still 3.8%. Many of you just can’t get over the fact that the GOP is a bunch of big spenders.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
1:36 pm

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:26 pm
Here’s the national debt by year, from the website of the United States Treasury. Maybe Bart Abel will tell us which year(s) we had a surplus and started paying the debt down. Or maybe not.
+++
If a surplus is a year in which the government spent less than it took in these numbers will not reflect it because these numbers include money the government owes itself.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:40 pm

“Many of you just can’t get over the fact that the GOP is a bunch of big spenders.”

…yet another liberal lie. Many former GOP supporters are completely disgusted with GOP spending habits, hence the creation of the Tea Party, and hence the GOP faction that is refusing to support any compromise that Boehner might make with the Democrats.

Thanks for parrotting the talking points though.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
1:40 pm

Swami Dave

July 27th, 2011
1:12 pm
Moderate Line

“There are only 100 new Republicans in the house and senate out of 500+. Our credit ratings is only in jeopardy because the threat of debt ceiling not being passed in time so one could easily argue that if the Republicans had not been elected the credit rating would not be an issue.”

Moodys has already stated that the credit rating of the United States will be at risk (and would have always been) based on the growing size of our debt as a ratio to GDP. Were Congress to have passed a “clean” debt ceiling increase (as was PrezBOs initial demand threatening veto) or not – our credit rating was at risk based on those sheer financial numbers.

By associating the debt ceiling increase to actual spending cuts (preferably in the nearer term under control of THIS Congress), the best chances for continuation of our current debt rating exist. Increases without fiscal controls or with gimmicked fiscal restraints will lead to the same outcome (greater debt & a lowering of the rating).

You are simply mistaken.

-SD
++++
You are simply mistaken. If the Republicans did not control the house a debt ceiling bill would be passed. Whether it would address the long term debt may be a question with the Republicans the chance of a debt ceiling being passed looks like it might not happen at ALL.

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:41 pm

“If a surplus is a year in which the government spent less than it took in these numbers will not reflect it because these numbers include money the government owes itself.”

Why don’t you break that down for us then and tell us how much of the current $14 trillion in debt is real, and how much is just debt the government owes itself?

This ought to be fun….

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:44 pm

“You are simply mistaken. If the Republicans did not control the house a debt ceiling bill would be passed.”

Are you sure? Because Barack Obama voted AGAINST increasing the debt ceiling when he was a Senator and Bush was president, calling it reckless, etc, etc.

Has the Complainer in Chief changed his opinion on debt in the interim?

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:46 pm

As President Obama and congressional Republicans joust in the coming weeks over the federal debt ceiling, consider this quote:

“The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means ‘The buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

– Senator Barack Obama, 2006

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm

I admittedly make mistakes, Josey, but I don’t tell lies.

To be clear, in absolute dollar amounts the debt did not go down under Clinton. However, during his last year in office, Clinton paid both principal and interest on the debt which reduced it’s rate of growth. At the time, interest was compounding faster than we could pay down the principal, but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t beginning to pay down our debt, as I said earlier.

In addition, in real dollars (adjusted for inflation), the debt in 2000 is lower than the debt in 1999, and debt as a percentage of the economy (GDP) shrunk under Clinton.

My point still stands. The debt ceiling is a reflection of budgets already passed and not a reflection of lenders’ desire to lend.

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm

Outlaw @ 1:29 pm:
You may be correct with your numbers but the reason debt is increasing under BHO is because of revenue. (BTW – I don’t support increasing income tax rates as a means to increase revenue.) He has not increased spending (on a percentage basis) near the rate of Reagan, GHWB, or GWB. What is going to be the biggest contributor to debt is the increase spending on medical treatment for seniors as more boomers join their ranks and existing seniors live longer (actually GWB’s spending numbers were somewhat skewed by this).

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm

Note that Senator Obama said we have a debt problem…not a revenue or tax problem. As I posted above, note also that he freely extended the Bush tax cuts and then reduced Social security taxes by 33%.

Liberals are so funny…

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:50 pm

Well, based on Mr. Obama’s comments from 2006 and the posts of Bart and mehlman at 1:47, it sounds like we’re all in agreement that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

I guess it’s safe to assume you both support the Tea Party position on the debt ceiling in that case?

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:52 pm

“However, during his last year in office, Clinton paid both principal and interest on the debt which reduced it’s rate of growth. At the time, interest was compounding faster than we could pay down the principal, but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t beginning to pay down our debt, as I said earlier.”

Let me get this straight…

So I can pay on the principal, ignore the compounding interest, and claim that I’m paying down debt???

LMAO!!!

The Outlaw Josey Wales

July 27th, 2011
1:55 pm

I wish I still had a mortgage. I could call the bank and tell them I want to pay principal only, and ignore the interest.

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
1:59 pm

Nobody said anything about “ignoring” interest, but somebody is “ignoring” the rest of my comment and other facts to support her beliefs.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
1:59 pm

The truth is it doesn’t matter that Obama opposed raiding the debt ceiling while he was a Senator. The debt situation has been (and I choose my words intentionally here) so out of control for decades that a sitting President doesn’t have a choice but to recommend raising the debt limit. In other words since both parties have shot the moon on the expenditure side the only options they have left us is almost worse than the cure. The alternative is default and if you or your relatives have any investments that include US. Government securities that means no interest will be paid on your investment (better check your mutual fund holdings). Also, for those who don’t care about that, a default on U.S. securities means that any other equity or bond position you hold declines in value so don’t attempt to sell. Just like the mortgage market no one understood that in markets for securities and other tangible investments there is a “bid” side, what one is willing to pay for your asset. So in closing, if the US government defaults your bid side on any security will be much lower that you might want.

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
2:04 pm

Senator Obama was correct in 2006 – we do have a debt problem. My point is that the GOP’s current revulsion over spending is disengenuous and that Obama’s “massive” spending is not the cause of the problem. In fact if I could paraphrase Speaker Boener’s speech the other night, I would say, “The President (Bush) wanted a blank check 6 years ago and we gave it to him”.
Rand Paul actually stated it correctly several months ago when he stated that the federal government’s spending on items outside of it’s authority did not begin with Barack Obama.

MrLiberty

July 27th, 2011
2:08 pm

The Balanced Budget amendment is a red herring. There has been a public law passed under the Carter Administration that requires the government to have a balanced budget. It is law and nobody cares. We have a First Amendment that is almost null and void. We have a Fourth Amendment that was completely destroyed by the Patriot Act, the TSA, and a long list of governmet agencies. We have strict limits on congressional power, executive power, the power of the Federal Government and nearly everyone in congress and the white house except Ron and Rand Paul doesn’t care one bit about these things. The constitution is a dead letter in Washinton. Adding another amendment to it isn’t going to help matters.

Funny how they can come up with enough votes to pass the amendment but not enough to approve the spending cuts needed to actually balance the budget. That is Washington for you.

And who will enforce this amendment? The same Supreme Court that says the Patriot Act is ok? The same one who says that campaign contributions are speech and then allows congress to limit contributions by individuals but not by corporations?

Don’t be a sucker. The republicans and the democrats (with the exception of Ron and Rand Paul) don’t respect the constitution and don’t enough about economics to do the right thing.

Swami Dave

July 27th, 2011
2:11 pm

Bart

“As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt despite the fact that the debt ceiling had been raised dozens of times before for decades. Then Bush became President.”

Demonstrably false. We have not “paid down” our debt in years as easily evidenced by the Government’s own OMB numbers.

“In fact, the debt ceiling is a reflection of deficit and debt, not a cause. It’s not akin to seeking credit; it’s akin to agreeing to pay the bills on the budget that Congress already passed, including the Republican House.”

-That sounds like legislation that should be amended to lower its cost or repealed. It represents obligations made by Congress (both Republican and Democrat) that our budget will not cover.

“For the record, had the Paul Ryan plan been enacted, the debt ceiling would still have to be raised…repeatedly.”

An issue that I have with the Ryan budget that it is not aggressive enough in redirecting the current growth projections of deficits produced by past overspending. However, the Ryan budget (as the only legislative plan that has actually PASSED one of the Congressional bodies in the last couple of years) is better than either (a) no budget or (b) a budget that does nothing to address long-term deficits (as did PrezBO’s that failed to garner ONE vote in the Senate)

“The amount of available credit is determined by lenders, not Congress. And lenders want to lend, as indicated by historically low interest rates on Treasury Bonds.”

Yes, and much to the chagrin of Moderate Line, Moodys publicly announced that our debt rating risks lowering without (their number) as much as $4T in reductions. This reality whether or not there are issues arising from the debt ceiling. This is, yet again, a publicly-reported fact by numerous agencies.

With apology, I would expect to find little of value to a review of the Progressive Caucus budget that would almost certainly raise taxes and find defense (an ACTUAL Constitutional role of our government) as a target for their “austerity”. Thanks, but no thanks.

-SD

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
2:13 pm

“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”

And yet, posters are still able to work in the Obama thing. God, this is why I don’t support either party. Both share the blame for the economy, but I wouldn’t dare tell the sheep that.

mehlman rings twice

July 27th, 2011
2:15 pm

Mr. Liberty @ 2:08 pm:
Good point.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
2:17 pm

just above I stated that no interest would be paid on your securities if your investment account held US Government securities. That is incorrect. Interest would only not be paid on a US Government security, be it either Bonds, Notes, and the remaining discount on a Treasury Bill. So if your fund holds 10-15% of its holdings in US Governments no interest would be paid on that portion from the date of the default.

And, by the way, they way these securities have been marketed over the decades is these securities are the safest because they are “guaranteed by the US Government. Draw your own conclusions from that. That is also part of the reason that EVERY President since and including Ronald Reagan has signed off on raising the debt ceiling. Reagan even implied that it would be abhorrent to not raise the debt ceiling and force the possibility of the US defaulting on its obligations.

kayaker 71

July 27th, 2011
2:29 pm

The numbers are all smoke and mirrors. There will be no default. Saying so sells lots of newspapers, cable time and blog spaces. The press is having a field day with this charade, pitting the “evil” Republicans or Democrats (depending on what TV show you watch) against each other. Fox even has a picture within a picture with the words “only 6 days left”, which is constantly on the screen. It gives the distaff parties to the negotiations and their supporters something to rail on about but it really doesn’t mean anything. Their biggest concern is whether or not these debates will have any effect on the 2012 elections. That’s why the Democrats are insisting in Reid’s bill that any agreement extend beyond November 2012. Bozo can’t use any more bad press especially from his base, which is somewhat disenchanted with his handling of this whole affair. But default…. that’s a fairy tale.

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
2:31 pm

Swami,

See previous discussion on paying down the debt.

In response to your comment…”I would expect to find little of value to a review of the Progressive Caucus budget that would almost certainly raise taxes and find defense (an ACTUAL Constitutional role of our government) as a target for their ‘austerity’.”–

Somehow, I knew that you wouldn’t be interested in looking at it. That’s something I noticed about Republican sympathizers. They insist on staying in Fox News/talk radio bubble. No outside information allowed.

You can disagree with how Democrats want to balance the budget, but you can’t claim that Republicans care more about doing so when the Ryan/GOP plan takes a decade or so longer.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
2:32 pm

Kayaker 71, I am very comforted by your words. I can go to sleep tonight and not worry about default. Thank you.

Jack McFarland

July 27th, 2011
2:34 pm

That is exactly what I was saying, Fletch.

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.

Kim Reamer

July 27th, 2011
2:44 pm

This is the repsonse I got from the MI Dem Senator Debbie Stabinaw when I contact her:
Thank you for contacting me about supporting the budget proposal passed by the House of Representatives. While I do not agree with the approach taken by the House, I share your concerns about the legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.

We all know that we need to make some tough choices about our federal budget. We need to evaluate every government program to make sure they are getting results and eliminate the ones that aren’t. I am working to cut the red tape and bureaucracies that hurt businesses and stifle creativity. We have already eliminated congressional earmarks. Now it is time to eliminate wasteful taxpayer-funded handouts to special interests and wealthy individuals.

When I served in the House of Representatives during the Clinton Administration, I worked to develop and pass the first balanced budget in thirty years. As a Senator, I have continued to fight for a leaner, smarter, government. I repeatedly voted to support the pay-as-you-go principle. This means making tough choices and ensuring that we are not hurting America’s future with unrestrained deficit spending. I will keep your concerns in mind as spending bills come before me in the Senate.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

This is my response: Thank you or should I say, thank your staff for responding. Unfortunately, you did not have the balance budget approach when you voted for Obama Care which did not have the support of the American public. It created more red tape, robs the people of their coverage, and created a multitude of handouts. Lastly, this is not a pay as you go program but you supported it. As for the budget, where is the 2011 budget? If no budget then how can you say pay as you go? Do not play words. You, the Senate and Obama over spent and now you want what was over spent approved. This is not the answer. The spending must be reduced and controlled. What you say and do is a different thing. We need people in the Senate who will work for the people and not against them. That is where my vote will go.

Let us turn the table on the Dems in the upcomming elections and reverse this mess. It is time the Republicans to shine for if they don’t then I would support a 3rd party. No more bindge spending.

retiredds

July 27th, 2011
2:49 pm

Kim, I have dozens of similar replies from our two GA US Senators. Even if you ask them a specific question the reply is like the one you received. They all have the form letter 101, just accept that fact.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
2:50 pm

The debt ceiling is NOT the problem. The problem is the DEBT. S&P has said that we must reduce the debt by $4 Trillion.

You've got to be kidding me.

July 27th, 2011
2:55 pm

Considering the bickering going on here..does it really surprise anyone that they can’t agree and get anything done. Everyone’s so busy pointing fingers and the problem just keeps getting worse.

Our nations debt is like a high interest credit card, you have a balance but only pay the minimum amount due but keep using it each month anyway…guess what….it eventually snowballs out of control

The debt issue is Obama’s fault. It’s was an issue LONG before he was elected. It’s been a problem for years..it’s just finally reach terminal velocity.

You've got to be kidding me.

July 27th, 2011
2:57 pm

Sorry… typo there…I meant ISN’T Obama’s fault.

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
2:59 pm

RE: “…you did not have the balance budget approach when you voted for Obama Care”

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 from

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CBO%20on%20HR2.pdf

Hillbilly D

July 27th, 2011
3:06 pm

The only thing either party is interested in, is kicking the can down the road until after the 2012 election and hoping they can make the other party look bad, doing it.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
3:07 pm

The only bill that will prevent a downgrade of the US Aaa rating is the Cut, Cap & Balance bill, already passed by the House. The House worked long & hard to pass the bill with bipartisan support from 5 Dems. Last Fri., Reid complained that the House had dismissed & that the Cut, Cap & Balance bill would be a waste of the Senators’ time. He refused to allow the Senators to debate or vote on the bill. He allowed a vote to “table” the bill & dismissed the Senators.

I can’t think of anything better to have done with the Senators’ time than debating this bill on the floor. Reid was afraid that it might pass. Only 5 Dem. Senators were needed. There are still Dems. in the Senate who voted YEA for the Balanced Budget Amendments in 1995 & 1997, which failed both times by one vote.

The House should refuse to go any further until the Senate votes on this bill. They can vote it down, amend it or agree to it. The House & the American people deserve to know where the Senate stands.

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
3:11 pm

Heritage Foundation, 1989 founder of health insurance mandates–

“[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…

Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…

A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.”

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Linda

July 27th, 2011
3:13 pm

The Cut, Cap & Balance bill does not cap spending at 18% of GDP. The caps are graduated from 22.5% of GDP in 2012 to 19.9% in 2021.

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap

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…….

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………..

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.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
6:34 pm

MarkV@6:21, Regardless of the thriving economy Bush inherited from Clinton, the fact is that we were attacked on 9/11/01 & the economy started going into a recession in ‘07 & ‘08, mainly due to the Democrats’ social justice program put into place in the ’90s & which Bush advanced.

What Obama inherited was an unemployment rate of 7.6% & a debt of $10 T. His policies have created a recession & could create a depression.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
6:35 pm

F. Sinkwich @6:29 pm: You clearly would not recognize the truth it it were sreved to you on a silver platter. I could not care less if you are tired by hearing the truth about Bush and his policies. We all have seen the results.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
6:38 pm

Linda @6:34 pm: “Regardless of the thriving economy Bush inherited from Clinton, the fact is that we were attacked on 9/11/01 & the economy started going into a recession in ‘07 & ‘08, mainly due to the Democrats’ social justice program put into place in the ’90s & which Bush advanced. ”

Yeh, and the Bush tax cuts, unpaid war and unpaid prescription program had nothing to do with it.”

F. Sinkwich

July 27th, 2011
6:40 pm

You’ve convinced me, MarkV, I won’t vote for Bush next year.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
6:42 pm

Truthy@6:24, I know the date, both the month & the day. As a matter of fact, right under your name lists both. It’s July 27, 2011. Congratulations!
If whites had not voted for Obama, he would have never been elected. You are insulting whites who voted for Obama, accusing them of being racist. How does that advance your agenda?
You are using some pretty rough speech here that might get you in trouble. You might want to tone down your rhetoric, at the same time you are changing out your bell bottoms.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
6:44 pm

Linda @6:34 pm:”What Obama inherited was an unemployment rate of 7.6% & a debt of $10 T.”

And how many people were losing jobs per month just before Obama came to power??

Linda

July 27th, 2011
6:49 pm

MarkV@6:31, The problem is that the people who actually PAY income taxes do not feel they are getting a bang for their bucks. Their bucks are going to people who do not PAY income taxes.

JDW

July 27th, 2011
6:50 pm

He!! Kyle, I would be happy with a GOP that did not just LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH as a matter of course….

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
6:54 pm

Linda @6:49 pm:”The problem is that the people who actually PAY income taxes do not feel they are getting a bang for their bucks. Their bucks are going to people who do not PAY income taxes.”

That is a inanity, a generalization without any substance.

F. Sinkwich

July 27th, 2011
6:54 pm

Hey, MarkV, how about you highlight your Messiah’s accomplishments since he’s been in office and his European socialist vision for the future instead of dwelling in the past?

Oh, that’s right, libs don’t want to go there for some reason. It’s easier to blame Bush.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
6:58 pm

F. Sinkwich @6:54 pm:

I certainly will not discuss this subject with you. Once somebody starts using the word “socialism” togather with Obama, it is clear that he is an ignorant, who does not know anything about what he is talking about..

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:02 pm

MarkV@6:38 & 6:44, Regardless of who did what & when, the fact remains that Obama’s policies have failed, miserably, & have deepened the recession & made unemployment & all the other economic indicators worse & could cause a decline in the credit rating of the US for the first time in history & could cause either a double dip recession, or ever worse, a depression.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:08 pm

MarkV@6:58, So if I start using the word “socialism” together with Obama, will that mean that you will no longer try to prolong this discussion with me?

Obama is a socialist! I agree with Charlie Rangel!

stranger in a strange land

July 27th, 2011
7:16 pm

Didn’t Time or Newsweek say not long ago “We’re all socialists now”?
Can’t get anymore authoritative than that.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
7:19 pm

“Yeh, and the Bush tax cuts, unpaid war and unpaid prescription program had nothing to do with it.”
—————————–

Your Idiot Messiah extended the tax cuts, added another war, and made the prescription drug program more generous and more expensive.

Hypocrite.

Buckwheat

July 27th, 2011
7:23 pm

The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
3:52 pm
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?

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
7:36 pm

Linda @7:02 pm: That is your opinion, not a fact.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:37 pm

Buckwheat@7:23, The left are still complaining about the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, which congress approved & Democrats voted for, & mention no fact that Obama surged Afghanistan & started a third “not war” in which we don’t “take sides,” which legislators learned about from TV & which has cost $1 B.

Go figure.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
7:38 pm

Linda @7:08 pm: :”Obama is a socialist!”

A proof that you do not know what “a socialist” means.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
7:40 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
6:34 pm
MarkV@6:21, Regardless of the thriving economy Bush inherited from Clinton, the fact is that we were attacked on 9/11/01 & the economy started going into a recession in ‘07 & ‘08, mainly due to the Democrats’ social justice program put into place in the ’90s & which Bush advanced.

What Obama inherited was an unemployment rate of 7.6% & a debt of $10 T. His policies have created a recession & could create a depression.
++++
You can make the argument that his policies have not improved the economy but you can not make the argument that his policies created a recession. For one we have been out of the recession since we have been out of the recession since June of 2009 and we may yet go into another but so far we have not.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
7:41 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout @7:19 pm: I consider your verbal excrements a product of deseased mind, and they are of no interest to me.

Moderate Line

July 27th, 2011
7:42 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:37 pm
Buckwheat@7:23, The left are still complaining about the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, which congress approved & Democrats voted for, & mention no fact that Obama surged Afghanistan & started a third “not war” in which we don’t “take sides,” which legislators learned about from TV & which has cost $1 B.

Go figure.
++++
Democrats in the house voted 126-82 against the war in Iraq.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:55 pm

MarkV@7:02, It’s my opinion? Please tell what economic indicators have increased since Obama took office. When has the Aaa credit rating EVER been in question in the history of the US? When has the unemployment rate ever been worse than during the Obama adm.? The Bureau of Labor has been calculating monthly unemployment rates since 1948. This month is the 69th month since 1948 that the unemployment rate has been @ 8% or higher. It’s the 30th month under Obama. So, 43% of the most severe unemployment in the last 63 yrs. has occurred during Obama’s adm.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
8:02 pm

Moderate Line @7:40 pm:”You can make the argument that his policies [Obama's]have not improved the economy…”

I beg to disagree. The Real Quarterly US GDP Growth Rate was 2.3 % in the third and 4th quarter 0of 2007,. then started dropping, getting negative in the 3rd quarter of 2008.and reaching a minimum in the second quarter of 2009, right after Obama’s inauguration. Since it has increased, got positive in the 4th quarter 0f 2009, and has then remained at or above the 2.3% since.

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:03 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
7:19 pm

“Yeh, and the Bush tax cuts, unpaid war and unpaid prescription program had nothing to do with it.”
—————————–

“Your Idiot Messiah extended the tax cuts, added another war, and made the prescription drug program more generous and more expensive.

Hypocrite.”

LBB, lest you forget that in order to ensure that those who were UNEMPLOYED continued to receive UI benefits, the President was forced to capitulate to the GOP’s demands to extend the tax breaks! You know that as well as the nation does!!

Obama did something for the GREATER good…..and it was NECESSARY!! The GOP is doing EVERYTHING to marginalize the middle class so that the rich get richer……..

It’s hypocritical for one to ignore the reasoning that generated the result!!

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:04 pm

MarkV@7:38, Maybe you are right. Maybe I don’t know what a socialist is. Maybe I’m wrong to believe that progressives are nothing more than socialists, that their actions don’t speak so loudly as to identify them for what they appear to be.
What I do know is that whoever they are, they are destroying our country.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
8:05 pm

Linda @7:55 pm
One more time, what were the monthly numbers of people losing jobs before Obama’s inauguration, and since his inauguration? As for the exconomic indicators, see my post @8:02 pm to Moderate Line.

MarkV

July 27th, 2011
8:07 pm

Linda @8:04 pm: In that one thing I can agree with you – you do not know what a socialist is.
Got to go,.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:09 pm

Rep. James Clyburn and a group of House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling if Congress can’t come up with a satisfactory plan before the Tuesday deadline.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html
—————————–

I guess the demitard isn’t familiar with the Constitution’s whole “separation of powers” thing.

He also conveniently ignores another part of the 14th Amendment:

“Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Democrats: Fascists.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:09 pm

Moderate@7:40, Really? You might want to ask people who are out of work. The unemployment numbers include only those receiving unemployment. The numbers do not include all the high school & college students who graduated last month, nor those who are underemployed.

chris h

July 27th, 2011
8:11 pm

Thanks, Drake.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:11 pm

MarkV: Lil’ Barry Bailout, I consider your verbal excrements a product of deseased mind, and they are of no interest to me. And yet I must respond.
———————-

Whatever.

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:17 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
7:55 pm

Linda, we know that the unemployment indicators are LAGGING indicators…..and the true effect is anything from 6-36 months AFTER an economic event!! If one takes the extreme point, people are still suffering from the Bush Effect!!

“When has the Aaa credit rating EVER been in question in the history of the US?” Since the GOP has failed to do what previous Congresses have routinely done: increase the debt limit! Under Reagan and both Bushes, Republican Congresses ROUTINELY increased the debt limit by sending a CLEAN bill! Only now, when Obama became President, is the GOP concerned about spending…when it is evident that the only entity that could rapidly address the economic problems of the nation is the GOVERNMENT!!!! THAT’S why Obama’s spending is NECESSARY!!! Once the economy improves, then we can better address balancing the budget, addressing the debt, and eliminating the deficit!!

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:20 pm

HDB@8:03, When Johnson launched his War on Poverty, the poverty rate was 14.3%. It’s still 14.3%, with trillions of dollars spent. The Democrats keep dumbing down the poor, in an effort to get votes. It’s worked for decades.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:20 pm

The Idiot Messiah has zero interest in balancing the budget, good economy or bad. He believes, like most incompetent sheeple Democrats, that government is what makes America great.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:21 pm

The Bush Effect: Eight years of 4-5% unemployment.

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:31 pm

Linda
July 27th, 2011
8:20 pm

….and where is the preponderance of those who are in poverty? Appalachia!! Isn’t that where there is NO diverse industry and much that could LIFT people out of poverty has been taken OFFSHORE?? Who controls Corporate America? The GOP!!!

Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
8:20 pm

The government is the one entity that ENSURES America’s greatness by the freedom and liberty its laws GUARANTEES to EVERY person within the nation’s borders! Note the Preamble to the Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

What is the entity that “we, the people” have created so that EVERYONE in the nation has such capability?? The GOVERNMENT!!! Lest you forget, prior to 1964, not EVERYONE had such Constitutional protections…….

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:32 pm

Mark@8:05, One more time??????
The Dept. of Labor has always based its unemployment rate of the number of jobs created less the number of jobs lost = the net number of jobs created or lost.

Democrats had this incredulous new employment assessment the last couple of years. They came up with this new statistic of the number of jobs created or SAVED, without subtracting the number of jobs lost, as if the American people were stupid, which they thought, which was inaccurate.

The unemployment statistics under Bush, compared to Obama, are overwhelming.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
8:32 pm

LBB -” 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?”

Sorry LBB, I headed out to my condo in Savannah for the weekend after my last post. My point being, is that I will expect the same outrage in 2 years when it becomes necessary to raise the debt ceiling again. I’m all for a balanced budget, but since it took us 30 years to get here, the possibility of bringing things in line by the time Obama is either re-elected or replaced is doubtful at best. I’m just hoping that those who are adamant about the cause now will be just as angry at a member of their own team should the need arise.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:36 pm

And what Constitutional protections were added in 1964? None. What entity denied some their rights prior to 1964? What entity denied Chrysler shareholders their property in 2009?

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:38 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
8:21 pm

“The Bush Effect: Eight years of 4-5% unemployment.” NOT QUITE TRUE!! Immediately after 9/11, the unemployment rate climbed to 8% due to massive layoffs in the airline and IT industries! United Airlines laid off 25,000 people two weeks after 9/11….and many of those employees were unemployed for periods greater than two years! We also know that in certain segments of society that the unemployment rate is TWICE the national average! Note the black unemployment rate under Reagan and Bush was over 15%!! During the Bush Recession, higher unemployment rates were just starting…..from 7% in 2007 to current levels!!

If you want to know the TRUTH, ask someone who was truly affected by the Bush Effect!!! I KNOW many who have……..

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:38 pm

I will expect the same outrage in 2 years when it becomes necessary to raise the debt ceiling again.
——————-

Prepare to be disappointed. The adults have arrived. While it will be necessary to raise the debt limit for some years into the future, we now have our best chance in forever to make progress toward reducing the growth of government spending. All thanks to the Tea Party and Republicans.

You’re welcome.

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
8:40 pm

Linda – ” Please tell what economic indicators have increased since Obama took office.”

Can’t name all of them, but I kicked some ass on the DNKN IPO today.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:41 pm

The Idiot Messiah would kill to get his unemployment rate down to the level it was at any point of our President Bush’s eight years. Unemployment under Obozo has been higher in every month than in any month of President Bush’s administration.

Obozo: Inferior to Bush on keeping unemployment low.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:43 pm

HDB, you might want to get your fact straight, too. Unemployment never got above 5.7% in 2001.

Don’t fear facts.

http://scottstanzel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/President-Bush-Monthly-Unemployment-Percent1.jpg

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
8:44 pm

LBB – “Prepare to be disappointed. The adults have arrived. While it will be necessary to raise the debt limit for some years into the future, we now have our best chance in forever to make progress toward reducing the growth of government spending. All thanks to the Tea Party and Republicans.

You’re welcome.”

Won’t affect me either way, I don’t rally for either side. I merely ask questions and hope for answers. I stopped being a cheerleader after voting GW in the first time. After that it was painfully obvious that no politician was really going to make or break me, and I’ve seen nothing since then to change that reality.

“

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:44 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout
July 27th, 2011
8:36 pm

“And what Constitutional protections were added in 1964? None.”
Lest you forget that people of color were not considered American CITIZENS until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1964/65 which GUARANTEED the right to vote and FULL Constitutional protections!! Recheck your history……………….

” What entity denied some their rights prior to 1964?” State governments, particularly in the SOUTH!! You CAN’T forget that aspect of American history….or are many conservatives this obtuse????

HDB

July 27th, 2011
8:46 pm

Lil’ Barry Bailout

July 27th, 2011
8:43 pm

Check the time frame from 9/11/2001 to 12/31/2003…….and ask someone who was laid off as an effect of 9/11! You find out DIFFERENTLY that what you’re espousing! Not only do I KNOW many who were effected…I WAS one of the affected!!!

Reality……what a concept!!!

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:50 pm

HDB@8:17, You are badly misinformed. The reason the credit rating agencies are threatening to downgrade our Aaa rating has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling. The problem is the debt.
They are demanding that it be cut by $4 T.
The govt./entity that rapidly addressed the economic problems the nation faced failed miserably & only added to the problem: the debt.

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
8:51 pm

LBB – “The Bush Effect: Eight years of 4-5% unemployment.”

That actually is true. Unfortunately, between 03 and 07, much of that was based on the same financial principles that lead us to the implosion of the economy. Lot’s of digital money floating around all built on a hyper inflated lending and investing market that couldn’t be sustained.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
9:05 pm

HDB@8:31, What capability?

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
9:14 pm

RE: “The reason the credit rating agencies are threatening to downgrade our Aaa rating has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling.”

The gridlock over the debt limit “highlights the sheer difficulty” lawmakers are having coming to agreement, [David Beer, managing director of sovereign credit ratings at Standard & Poor’s] said, which has prompted S&P to shorten the time frame over which it wants to see major cuts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-27/u-s-credit-rating-rests-on-s-p-s-london-view-of-washington.html

HDB

July 27th, 2011
9:17 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
8:50 pm

“The govt./entity that rapidly addressed the economic problems the nation faced failed miserably & only added to the problem: ”

Not quite….if it ADDED to the problem, why were GOP legislators taking pictures and taking credit for jobs created by the stimulus??? Why did Republican governors use stimulus funding to balance their budgets and SAVE jobs??? In many cases, it didn’t go FAR enough! There were several economists that stated this!!

If you curtail government spending now is a down-economic period, the possibility of another recession…or WORSE….can occur. The debt needs to be addressed, true enough…but isn’t it better addressed when economic activity IMPROVES and the tax base INCREASED?? What Corporate America needs to do is what the government has done: increase economic activity by HIRING and keeping jobs HERE! If you need to get on someone…get on the GOP and Corporate America….get more sources of info versus just listening to Fox News and the Wall Street Journal (try the BBC, Financial Times, other news sources!)!

I am a liberal….in the traditional sense! Liberal being derived from the verb “to liberate”..meaning to free, to become independent, to be allowed to determine one’s own path!!

Linda

July 27th, 2011
9:19 pm

HDB@8:38, Now you are lying. The highest annual unemployment rate under Bush was 5.99 & was never 8%.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp

The black unemployment rate is the highest it’s ever been, under Obama, when he & the Dems. thought that raising the minimum wage, during an economic recession in ‘09, would guarantee that all minimum wage earners would keep their jobs & have a windfall increase in their income. Idiots!

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
9:20 pm

Bart Abel – “The gridlock over the debt limit “highlights the sheer difficulty” lawmakers are having coming to agreement, [David Beer, managing director of sovereign credit ratings at Standard & Poor’s]”

Exactly, it’s like a self fulfilling prophecy. I wish I could remember the name of the gentleman I saw on Worldwide Investing this morning, but he was from England, and said this

” When the markets crashed in 2007, we couldn’t believe that the people in Congress were so absolutely stupid that they couldn’t see what was happening around them. This time however, with the looming deadline on the debt ceiling, we now know that the members of Congress are in fact that stupid.”

You have to love the foreign perspective, it’s neither DEM or GOP, just honest, concise and unfortunately accurate.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
9:22 pm

Fletch@8:40, I’m not your mother. Google “Economic Indicators” & see for yourself. Hint: wear your glasses.

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
9:25 pm

Linda – “Fletch@8:40, I’m not your mother. Google “Economic Indicators” & see for yourself. Hint: wear your glasses.”

I wasn’t answering your question, it was a rhetorical response. Hint: Learn the difference.

HDB

July 27th, 2011
9:32 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
9:19 pm

The capability: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity!

….and no, I’m not lying!! IN particular industries, immediately after 9/11, the unemployment rate jumped to 8%…..IT and the airlines! United Airlines laid off 25,000 people in two weeks (I was one of them)!! In Chicago, the effect of 9/11 shot that local economy into a tailspin that took over two years to recover!! (Remember, Chicago is United’s home town!) If you look at IT now, it’s JUST beginning to recover……..

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
9:20 pm
“” When the markets crashed in 2007, we couldn’t believe that the people in Congress were so absolutely stupid that they couldn’t see what was happening around them. This time however, with the looming deadline on the debt ceiling, we now know that the members of Congress are in fact that stupid.”

You have to love the foreign perspective, it’s neither DEM or GOP, just honest, concise and unfortunately accurate.”

WHAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT!!!!!

Fletch

July 27th, 2011
9:34 pm

Alright, time to get my weekend started.Hope everyone plays nice!

HDB

July 27th, 2011
9:40 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
9:19 pm

“thought that raising the minimum wage, during an economic recession in ‘09, would guarantee that all minimum wage earners would keep their jobs & have a windfall increase in their income.”

I’m looking at this in another fashion; what would motivate low income earners to WANT to work, thereby becoming more productive and increasing the tax base?? Answer: higher entry level income!! Knowing that I could have the better chance to become independent and focus on creating an opportunity rather than to be forced to work multiple jobs just for survival…….THATS a motivation!! Isn’t that what’s desired….those on the lower economic scale to become more self reliant???? A higher starting income can do just that!!!

Bart Abel

July 27th, 2011
9:46 pm

RE: “Now you are lying. The highest annual unemployment rate under Bush was 5.99″

The unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent in January 2009, Bush’s last month in office. This was a 16 year high.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
10:01 pm

HDB@9:17, Many of the states have budget problems. They are BIG problems. The federal govt. fused money into the states. It helped. The money is gone. Actually, it was never there. There will be no more money from the fed. govt. The fed. govt. borrowed money from China or used money that the Fed. Reserve printed out of thin air, causing inflation to every person in the US, an non-legislated tax.

That said, this was what Dems. always do. When a tree falls on the roof, Dems. put a bucket on the floor & repair the sheet rock on the ceiling. They never remove the tree nor recommend ways to repair the gaping hole in the roof.

The systemic problem with the states still exists. The limb is still on the roof & the hole in the roof is still there.

There is NO money. There hasn’t been any money for a long time.

Government spending during an economic recession has never worked, especially when the govt. HAS NO MONEY. The economy can’t be micromanaged. It’s like a river. It’s a natural phenomenon. Politicians can only muddy its waters & dam it up OR let it run free. We can not spend our way out of a recession with China’s money.

The US is the laughing stock of the world.

Linda

July 27th, 2011
10:18 pm

HDB@9:32, The unemployment rates fluctuate monthly, but the fact is that the annual rate in ‘01 was 4.76%.
I’ve heard you complain on these blogs that you could not get a job after you were laid off. Let me guess. The job you searched for & obtained was another govt. job?

Linda

July 27th, 2011
10:26 pm

HDB@(;40, What actually happened after the Dems. raised the minimum wage during a recession? What happened to the unemployment rates of the lowest income workers, blacks, youth, etc.? Do you know of any low-income workers who would be willing to work for less than minimum wages today, for example a teenager who would work for $7 per hour? How many more people would be employed if employers could employ employees for $7 per hour?

Linda

July 27th, 2011
10:31 pm

Bart@9:46, As I said & as you reiterated, the highest annual unemployment rate under Bush was 5.99%.

yuzeyurbrane

July 27th, 2011
10:55 pm

Day 6. How was your 395k today, Kyle?

HDB

July 27th, 2011
11:34 pm

Linda

July 27th, 2011
10:01 pm/10:18 pm/10:26 pm

May I approach your posts in this manner:

1)” The fed. govt. borrowed money from China or used money that the Fed. Reserve printed out of thin air, causing inflation to every person in the US, an non-legislated tax.”

That said, this was what Republicans always do. When a tree falls on the roof, Republicans won’t admit that a tree exists! They never remove the tree nor recommend ways to repair the gaping hole in the roof…but attack those who ask for help in dealing with the hole!

“There is NO money. There hasn’t been any money for a long time.”
Who took the dollar off the gold standard? Republicans (Richard Nixon)!! Historically, which party has CREATED more economic hardships for the nation? Republicans (starting with Abraham Lincoln…continuing to GWB!)

2) “I’ve heard you complain on these blogs that you could not get a job after you were laid off. Let me guess. The job you searched for & obtained was another govt. job?” Nope….private sector! I was employed at United Airlines in IT until 9/11 occurred….and it took over two years before the private sector hired me again in IT…and I LOST economic capability by 30%!! (2001 – 03)

3) “Do you know of any low-income workers who would be willing to work for less than minimum wages today, for example a teenager who would work for $7 per hour? How many more people would be employed if employers could employ employees for $7 per hour?”
Remember: the minimum wage JUST went to $7/hr……and no one would work for LESS than minimum wage…but a decent minimum wage would attract more people to the work force! If a person can make more working rather than being on the dole, isn’t that what you desire! If I were laid off from a job earning 70K and had to settle for UI vs working for 1/10 of my income, I’d deal with UI payments until I could find comparable employment!! I know of several teens who DO work for minimum…so that they can get experience…………………

Things are NOT as politicians make them be…….

We ALL should know that these problems did not begin with Obama; right now, he’s the steward! If you had noted which party presided over an oil crisis that allowed the price of gasoline to triple in one year (Republicans – Nixon), refused to acknowledge an energy problem, thereby quadrupling the deficit in one year (Republicans – Reagan), refused to acknowledge a recession and raised taxes on the middle class (Republicans – Bush 41)..and who borrowed money to finance two wars rather than raise taxes as his predecessors had done (Republicans – Bush 43)……………..

Can we all deal with reality????

Al

July 27th, 2011
11:34 pm

Kyle, please tell your knuckle dragging friends this has to be solved right now. And YES we need to raise tax rates to the Clinton years tax rates. Somehow the economy was racing along at breakneck speed; and no one noticed tax rates! Why was that? Oh yeah, the super rich were making money hand over fist with all the Y2K money out there and didn’t care. But STILL they wanted TAX cuts so they could make EVEN more! The plan was to scare the US into believing that TAX cuts would create jobs and without it; well the results wold be dire. Of course the American public has the memory of a flea and decided a man with a terrible financial track record and was pro-life was WAY better than continuing the positive financial results of the previous administration. And here you have it…2 unfunded wars, 1 huge unfunded prescription drug program and 14 trillion in debt. Boner and crew are done; come 2012 Obama will get re-elected and every stupid, self serving republican will be out of a job.

Linda

July 28th, 2011
12:32 am

HDB@11:34, Bless your heart!
1. No. You don’t get it. Whoever caused the tree to fall on the roof & cause a gaping hole needs to fix it. If some of the states have problems, they need to fix them. It is not fair for states who were prudent, to bail out states who were not, thru the fed. govt., spreading the wealth around.
2. Liberals don’t get jobs in the private sector like conservatives do. As small business owners, my husband & I would never hire people who thought we were fat cats.
3. The minimum wage was increased in ‘09 when unemployment was increasing. It caused employers to lay off workers & the unemployment rate to go up. That’s a fact. You think that a higher minimum wage attracts workers to the workforce. What is does is detract/prevent employers from hiring workers.
Obama is not the steward. He has a presidential hold over drilling for our natural resources, causing gas prices to be at an all-time high, a promise he made during his campaign. He wanted energy prices to skyrocket & gas prices to increase to what they are in the UK. Congratulations, Obama. I hope that the American people can see thru him for what he really is.
Shame on you for supporting him at the same time trying to lift up the poor.

Linda

July 28th, 2011
12:57 am

Al@11:34, Just how high should taxes go? Just how many many months should taxpayers, the people who actually pay taxes, work for the fed. govt.? Obamacare already raises taxes by $503 B, by raising Medicare payroll taxes from 2.9% to 3.8% for earners over $250K & imposes a new Medicare unearned income tax when a home is sold or when a profit is made or when stocks or other types of unearned income is made. Obamacare taxes health products & consumer products. It imposes a 40% excise tax on gererous health care plans.

Alex

July 28th, 2011
4:54 am

You are all idiots. America issues it’s own currency, it is call printing money. America CANNOT DEFAULT by definition.

Greece can default, California can default, America CANNOT DEFAULT.

America can print Billion Dollar Bills to pay everyone if we (congress) chooses.

The choice is to inflate (raise the debt ceiling) which is a back-handed bailout to the wall street criminals or to deflate which reward savers, those ordinary people that did not get into debt.

independent thinker

July 28th, 2011
5:36 am

So where are all the jobs and reinvestment of capital we are continuously being promised for the ten years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

independent thinker

July 28th, 2011
5:46 am

“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"In the midst of an economic crisis that’s getting scarier by the day, it’s time to ask whether the nation can really afford some 1,000 military bases overseas. For those unfamiliar with the issue, you read that number correctly. One thousand. One thousand U.S. military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, DC, representing the largest collection of bases in world history.

Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, but this notoriously unreliable number omits all our bases in Iraq (likely over 100) and Afghanistan (80 and counting), among many other well-known and secretive bases. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — just to name a few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.

Unlike domestic bases, which set off local alarms when threatened by closure, our collection of overseas bases is particularly galling because almost all our taxpayer money leaves the United States (much goes to enriching private base contractors like corruption-plagued former Halliburton subsidiary KBR). One part of the massive Ramstein airbase near Landstuhl, Germany, has an estimated value of $3.3 billion. Just think how local communities could use that kind of money to make investments in schools, hospitals, jobs, and infrastructure.

Even the Bush administration saw the wastefulness of our overseas basing network. In 2004, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced plans to close more than one-third of the nation’s overseas installations, moving 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians back to the United States. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, then commander of U.S. forces in Europe, called for closing 20% of our bases in Europe. According to Rumsfeld’s estimates, we could save at least $12 billion by closing 200 to 300 bases alone. While the closures were derailed by claims that closing bases could cost us in the short term, even if this is true, it’s no reason to continue our profligate ways in the longer term.”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
From Too Many Overseas BasesBy David Vine. Edited by Emily Schwartz Greco, February 25, 2009
Why is this cost saving measure untouchable in any Republican plan??????????? Maybe it is the no bid contractors who will lose money.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 28th, 2011
6:27 am

HDB: Reality……what a concept!!!
———————

Right, and the reality is that you claimed unemployment went up to 8% right after 9/11, I showed you the data which proved you wrong, and you maintain you’re correct because you know some folks who got laid off or some such.

Don’t fear facts, HDB.

Lil' Barry Bailout

July 28th, 2011
6:28 am

independent thinker: So where are all the jobs and reinvestment of capital we are continuously being promised for the ten years of the Bush tax cuts for the rich?
———————

You’ll have to ask Obozo, since the jobs and reinvestment disappeared on his watch.

The real causes of our fiscal woes – GoDanRiver.com | Finance Today

July 28th, 2011
6:42 am

[...] social safety net will hurt all AmericansIthaca JournalThe Daily News of Newburyport -Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -Las Vegas Sunall 154 news [...]

Intown

July 29th, 2011
11:45 am

“The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.”

– Paul Krugman, NY Times

The debt-ceiling deadline gets an extension

227 comments Add your comment

About Kyle Wingfield

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Search by blog topic

Blogroll

Guidelines for this blog

My special series on MARTA

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

The debt-ceiling deadline gets an extension

227 comments Add your comment

About Kyle Wingfield

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Search by blog topic

Blogroll

Guidelines for this blog

My special series on MARTA

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites