It all comes down to spending your money wisely. If the nation raises the debt
ceiling by x amount of dollars, you would think they would counter balance it
with x amount of cuts. Is it really any different than a normal family budget?
You can only pay what you can pay, and if you take out more debt than you can
handle, you're going to go bankrupt. We have too many programs that are
worthless, and have proven worthless with the results they return. I propose
that we end the worthless spending that both parties have contributed to, and
balance the budget. If you think that we are in hard times now with this debt,
just think of a time in the not so distant future when everyone will be hurting.
We can't help others in need if we can't even help ourselves.
They're not going to stop the posturing and grandstanding until the markets take
a dive. We all know Wall St. controls the folks in DC. When the billionaire
investors, banks and big business start to get concerned we'll see action.
Petra,Right on! Rifleman, you claim the President doesn't have a
plan. He has proposed a framework over and over. I would rather start with a
framework were we can negotiate from than the non-starter proposals that the
republicans make and then refuse to compromise one inch, and then claim the
democrats are playing politics.I would ask why would anyone believe
the republicans are serious, because there idea of a solution is we are right
and you can accept our position or we will take our ball and go home. I for one
hope that this little game the are playing backfires and costs them big in the
Too bad this nasty business caused BO to miss his golf and basketball game
yesterday. And with the Posters permission I am going to take Nixon's nickname
of Tricky away and give it to Reid. He certainly has earned it.... one of a
Re: Petra | 9:00 a.m. July 25, 2011 Polls aren't facts or we
wouldn't need to hold elections to verify them.Obama claimed to have
a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The fact is he never had any plan
whatsoever. If he is unwilling to reduce the deficit in 2011 why would anyone
ever believe he'd be willing to do it next year?When people, and
governments, spend more than they make sooner or later they go bankrupt.
Now for all of the grand plan budget deals. It is all EnRon Accounting. There are few real cuts in these proposals. Gang of 6 was a tax
increase. They will not balance anything due to the hidden underlying
assumptions. The numbers (supposed savings) are no better than the math that was
used to create them. Some might slow down the spending a little. Obama is insisting that Obama Care is off limits. He is also insisting on
avoiding another debt debate before the election. He knows he will lose if there
is one. The Reps have not handled this debt debate well but they
want the issue hot just before the election (hence a short term deal). They want to be able to present to the Elderly a choice between cutting Obama
Care and cutting SS/Medicare. They can't do that if they cut a long term deal on
SS/Medicare now. The Young already figured out Obama is not in their
best interest. If the DEMS lose the old vote (and they vote) they are major
toast. The run up in the FED spending since 2007 is massive. It has
to return to normal.
Here we are one week before the country "supposedly" will default on
its debt (nothing but propaganda by democrats) and the pathetic democrats who
run the senate and the whitehouse still have not put forth a piece of
legislation.But.....They have voted no on all the
republicans legislation.Pagan, I thought Republicans were the party
of "no"?Democrats have been nothing but pathetic on this
serious issue. They have been so busy running to the microphone to play
politics they have failed to put forth a shred of legislation to solve this
problem.Kind of like the democrats have not put forth a budget for
the last 2 years so they can continue spending whatever they want.Lets not forget though, our president did put forth his budget that would
almost double the deficit in the next 10 years.The democratic
controlled senate voted the presidents budget down 97-0. Our president can't
even be taken seriously by his own party. What a pathetic failure.
@Furry and Mormon DEMYour points are good. There is a massive miss
guided Keynesian spending problem. There is also a revenue problem
but that does not stem from taxes being to low. It stems from a structural
recessionary economy. The US could and should return to the 2007 spending level.
That would not balance the budget but it would buy a lot of time to try to get
the economy to fully recover (employment down to 5-6%). It normally
takes 5 years to recover from a recession caused by to much consumer debt. We
are about 1/2 the way thru now. Further, there was both a liquidity
crisis (Lehman Bros) and a consumer debt crisis (still ongoing in the form of
housing defaults). The Fed has weakened the currency to get the
export part of the economy to recover. That raised China's inflation. It also
raised oil prices and the stock market. It has a weak wealth effect.
People lost money on houses but are regaining their 401K wealth if they have
one. The massive Keynesian spending by the DEMS (and Bush before
them) has a short run effect but a long term price.
At the moment the $ is stronger not weaker. There is no crisis in the market. It
is down less than 1% which is random noise and likely profit taking. Ditto for
Asia. Further, there is a high correlation between the EUR/$ ratio
and whether stock are up or down in the short run. If the EUR weakens or the $
strengthens stocks go down. They also go up on a stronger EUR or weaker $. At this point there is no direct debt default effect on the market. That
could change but technically the Government can't default as they would just
print more money to pay the bills (a variation of QE3). A prolonged
bout of QE3 could move the market as would higher interest rates. However, delaying payment on everything except T-Bills, essential employees,
and SS/Medicare/Medicaid would probably not move the markets much if a decent
deal seemed to be in the works. The Government CAN"T run out of
money as the Treasury can just print anything they need.That would
be inflationary and should raise interest rates but the US CAN'T default because
they can print (like every other country that has it's own currency).
For the fact-challenged, here are some more :Fact - in a recent CBS
poll, 66% agreed that we should have BOTH spending cuts AND revenue increase.Fact - in the same poll, 75% say they want an agreement to be reached,
rather than allow the US to default on its loans.Fact - in a recent
CNN poll, 63% say the Republicans have not acted responsibly in this crisis.Fact - in that same CNN poll, "more than 70 percent of Americans
favor a plan that raises taxes on those who make more than $250 thousand a year,
businesses that own private jets, oil and gas companies as well as ending the
federal subsidies that those businesses receive."Fact - in that
same CNN poll, "just 12 percent say they would support cutting the amount
spent on Medicare, and only 22 percent would support cuts to Medicaid."These conversations between President Obama and leaders of Congress,
however, are being run by THE TEA PARTY, not by the American people. The tea
party is comprised of 19% of the American public.WHY ARE WE ALLOWING
THE TEA PARTY EXTREMISTS TO USURP OUR GOVERNMENT AND CONTROL THE FUTURE OF
AMERICA? They're bringing us to ruin.
Re: xscribe | 7:37 a.m. July 25, 2011 Specifically Obama said he
wants to decrease our debt level by $2 trillion and he wants to start by
increasing our debt level through 2014. Common sense says if you continue
deficit spending today it's not likely that you'll be able to start paying down
the debt tomorrow.If we increase taxes today it can only follow that
we will have to double our taxes tomorrow ..... just to break even.
A plan from the Democrats? That is more than Barry Obama ever did.
The misinformation and disinformation about this issue so rampant and so very
obvious on these boards. There obviously still exist people who only get their
news from one source (or worse, from talk shows) and are being told to have no
worries, that everything will be fine if we default and "we" (hint :
the very far right) cannot budge.Fact - Obama has offered 3 to 1
spending cuts over revenue increase and the "revenue increase" was in
closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, not raising anyone's taxes. Boehner
walked out.Fact - Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times
and raised taxes 11 times, to rates much higher than today.Fact -
George Bush II increased the debt ceiling seven times without so much as a
squeak coming from the Republicans, all the while waging two unfunded wars and
promoting an unfunded Medicare prescription program (which are two HUGE factors
in the current request for the debt ceiling to be raised).Fact - if
we do not clean up this mess NOW, even the tea party people will suffer in ways
they can now not even imagine.GROW UP, CONGRESS. THIS IS NOT A GAME.
TEA PARTY, READ SOME ACTUAL NEWS.
Barrack Obama spends $4.1 BILLION a day more than the government brings in.
That's $4.1 Billion a day! That real money and it adds up. That's why spending
has to be cut.
Any sum that large would require either cuts to benefit programs that aides said
Reid preferred to leave untouched, or savings from the Pentagon, possibly by
assuming the end of the wars in Iraq and AfghanistanAnother smoke
and mirror Dem. plan. Assuming the end of the wars. Hah! For you who think the
Libs. will put their sacred cows of redistribution of wealth up Reid said he
preferred to leave those untouched. Hah! That is double speak for hands off. And
as usual Obama has nothing but babble. What a joke.
@Rifleman: What hard choices are you talking about? Please be specific.
Because the president has been on national TV for millions to see, and has said
that he IS willing to make tough choices regarding SS, Medicare, etc. So, which
"hard choices" are you speaking about?A quote fron Boehner
to his fellow republicans:"Be ready for compromise that is
"going to require some of you to make some sacrifices."Therein lies the problem: The Republicans are the ones that do not want to
make sacrifices and are unwilling to compromise. Even Boehner sees through
14th Ammendment:Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
shall not be questioned. . . .The Tea Party are in an act of war.
President Obama needs to unalateraly declare the debt limit raised because he is
charged with protecting the nation against any emergency. the Tea Party have
caused just that
Re: amicus | 11:15 p.m. July 24, 2011 The same principles that
govern personal debt also govern our national debt. When you borrow money you
have to pay it back with interest. At some point, if spending is not
controlled, the interest will crush the individual .... and also the nation.People that understand interest earn it while those that don't
understand it pay it. If Obama is unwilling to make the hard choices today why
should anyone think he'd be willing to make even more hard changes in 2 years?
Re: Screwdriver | 5:45 p.m. July 24, 2011 One question deserves
another: If Obama isn't willing to make the hard choices now what make anyone
think he'd be willing to make the hard choices in 2014? Washington jerks us
around and the liberals buy what they are trying to sell us hook, line and
I know that both Dems and GOP are responsible for this mess but the dems have
been playing games with this whole matter for the past 2 years. They should have
implemented their budgets and plans last year when they controlled both houses
but no... they decided this would be their election year issue to try to win
back control. Make the GOP deal with it and we'll just sit back and cry about
the mean republicans and how they're pushing grandma off a cliff.
First, we do not have a revenue problem...we have a spending problem. If I make
$200k per yr and am in debt because I can't control my spending...the problem is
spending not income. Second, if I max out my credit cards, the fastest way to
control spending is to cut up the cards...not increase my limit. Third...
Increasing taxes will put another wave of layoff into the market. Washington spends every dime that gets in their hands. The government is
bloated. Why has every private sector company had to adjust but the federal govt
just keeps spending and demanding more? Companies have stopped hiring and
investing not because Washington isn't spending enough...its because its
spending too much. The fastest way for the jobs market to take off again is to
stop Washington from spending so much.I also add that the budget was
balanced by the Republicans in congress not by Bill Clinton. He was dragged
kicking and screaming to it because both houses were controlled by the GOP after
94. Before that, he was proposing raising taxes and increasing spending.
Harry Reid has a 2.5 trillion dollar deficit reduction proposal that has 0
revenue increases. Apparently we've gotten to the point where Democrats are
arguing the Republican position, and yet I still think Republicans would reject
Reid's proposal just because a Democrat wrote it.
The consequences of not raising the debt ceiling would be disastrous. Im
continually surprised by the lack of basic financial-market understanding by
commenters. Please stop comparing the U.S.s balance sheet to your personal
credit cards. Our economy would suffer that is a fact, not an elitist,
fear-mongering conspiracy.We need to fundamentally change the debt
structure of our nations balance sheet, but playing chicken with the debt
ceiling is foolish. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the conservative cause
will suffer a major setback. It may take decades to recover.As
conservative voters, we need to demand real solutions from our representatives.
Many fellow conservatives need to get their heads out of the clouds. Failing to
raise the debt ceiling would not solve our nations debt problems, but rather,
make the situation worse.
DN Subscriber. They've presented plans repeatedly. Obama presented a plan more
ambitious than the Republicans' plan--$4billion vs. $2billion. But it included
repeal of tax cuts for millionaires, so the GOP shut it down.To say
the Dems have not put forth a plan is simply disingenuous.
Let the default happen. We can recover. Just maybe we force the balanced budget
Amendment to keep the Democrats and over spending Republicans in line. Without
it, both will continue to spend until we are bled out. This is a crisis. It is a
crisis in leadership - something we do not have in Barack Obama. We will be
better off in the long run, especially if we can break the Democrat's back and
shame the Republicans into doing the right thing. The only way to save our
country is to put the Democrats up against the proverbial wall and give them no
We will finally see something in writing from the Democrats on what they would
like to do?It is about time! So far they have only demagogued the
Republican plans (Ryan plan and Cut, Cap and Balance which both passed the
House). But, they have NEVER laid out an actual plan. Oh, they have said vague
stuff about cutting spending (like maybe a little bit over 10 years, starting in
about 9 years...) or cutting fraud and waste in some programs (why didn't they
do that 20 years ago?), or slashing military spending (but not a dime from any
social programs or entitlements). But none of that is in writing, so it is hard
to nail them on what they really intend to do.Obama meanwhile talks
about cutting spending but just ran up another 1.5 TRILLION deficit, so his
words are meaningless or deceptive. But, he, like the other Democrats has not
proposed a real plan.Until spending is cut (for FY 2011, 2012, 2013,
not 10 yeare from now), granting a debt increase or higher taxes just compounds
our already desperate debt problem.Stop the spending first. Then we
can talk about other things.
Believe this the world's economy and that of the USA will not come to and end if
there is a default. Apparently, the administration, also knows this and is
willing to let it happen in order to reject the outcome of the 2010 election and
continue with the spend, add debt, and kick the can down the road practices of
the past. Yes, the last time the budget was balanced was when Mr. Clinton was
in the White House and pushed by the loss of the House in the 2004 election to
become a pragmist, compromise with the new house and balance the budget. In
doing so, he insured his re-election. Perhaps, this President would be do well
to follow that lead. @Farmintown very creative!!!
When I was young and say a piece of cake was to be divided between me and my
sibling we would often fight over who gets which piece. Mom, being wise devised
a plan, one could divide the cake and the other got first choice. Both of us
had incentive to play fair. I have been trying to figure a similar way to solve
this current dilemma facing the "cut spending" vs. "increase
taxes arguments". The closest I have come so far is to say allow your
national voting count based on a percentage of the federal income tax you pay.
Those who pay none or have figured out loopholes to reduce their taxes, etc. get
no or lessor votes, but those who pay more as a percentage of their income get
The rancorous debate over the debt belies a fundamental truth of our economy
that it is run for the few at the expense of the many, that our entire
government has been turned into a machine which takes the wealth of a mass of
Americans and accelerates it into the hands of the few. Wall Street cashes in
whether we have a default or not. Fifty percent of our discretionary spending
goes for the Pentagon. A massive transfer of wealth into the hands of a few
while the American people lack sufficient jobs, health care, housing, retirement
security. Our energy policies take the wealth from the American people and put
it into the hands of the oil companies. We could be looking at $150 a barrel for
oil in the near future. Our environmental policy takes the wealth of the people,
clean air, clean water, and puts it in the hands of the polluters. It's a
transfer of wealth, not only from the present but from future generations as our
environment is ruined. Insurance companies, take the wealth from the American
people, put-it into the-hands of-few. Raise this debt ceiling, and tax the elite
The debt ceiling looms. Confusion reigns. Schemes abound. We are deep in a hole.
Ronald Reagan might as well be sitting in on the troubled debt talks, so
frequently is his memory invoked by both sides. Authoritarianism is
characterized by highly concentrated, and centralized power maintained by
political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses
political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of
the regime. Authoritarianism is a form of elite social organization
characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism
and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which
political authority is concentrated in a small group of political elite,
typically unelected by the people (but not necessarily), who possess exclusive,
most of the time unaccountable, and arbitrary power. Seems as if "WE THE
PEOPLE" have no say anymore what's going on in Congress. Raise this debt
ceiling, and tax the elite wealthy. Debt talks between Obama and House Speaker
John Boehner came to a grinding halt when Boehner abruptly broke them off,
raising new uncertainties that a deal could be struck to avert a threatened
government default. Who runs him is the Koch Brothers. Not us.
Why Does the Tea Party Want America to Fail?. Associated Press reported that it
called for $60 billion in cuts, which, if so, would represent a significant
defeat for the tea party caucus. Even at that level, the cuts will likely
produce direct job losses of 650,000 in government layoffs, which would likely
trigger to another 325,000 layoffs, mostly in the retail and service sectors
nearly 1 million jobs altogether according to an analysis by the Center for
American Progress. Whatever the job loss is whether it's 1 million, 800,000
or 650,000 the tea party's 180-degree flipflop on jobs is remarkable. Just a
few months ago, they won the House by convincing swing voters that their
number-one issue would be "Jobs, jobs, jobs." Boehner went around the
country campaigning for them, lamenting, "Mr. President, where are the
jobs?." But all of that was forgotten last week as details about the tea
party budget cuts emerged. Not only will their bill kill hundreds of thousands
of middle-class jobs, it offers nothing that addresses the need for "Jobs,
jobs, jobs." Loss of 1 Million Jobs Would Trigger the Second Republican
Recession since 2008.
Ever wonder why this country is even tinkering with default? Its because
Americans don't work anymore. A growing majority of them depend on entitlement
programs to pay for their pleasure seeking. The government they've got is one
that represents their interests- keep those freebies coming! The country simply
cannot keep subsidizing this ever expanding population of freeloaders who hail
from Democrat, Republican, and Teaparty ideologies.
If the Bush tax cuts were so important, why weren't they made permanent in the
first place? The Republicans are willing to bring us to the brink of
financial default on tax cuts THEY didn't make permanent?
David said: "Republicans have correctly identified the spending problem
congress has." That's certainly a friendly way to spin it! The Republicans
should have no problem identifying the spending problem since they are they are
largely responsible for the spending problem. Two unfunded wars. An unfunded
Medicare prescription drug benefit. And thirty years of lowering the taxes for
the wealthy.The only president to have a balanced budget in the last
30 years was Clinton, a Democrat. Reagan double the national debt. So did Bush
II.Now that they're suddenly panicking about the national debt they
want to balance the budget solely on the backs of the poor and the elderly.
They won't even consider returning tax rates on the wealthy to the sensible
levels of the past.Warren Buffett himself even laments how perverse
it is that his secretary pays a higher portion of her income on tax than he
does.The Republicans aren't trying to prevent an economic
apocalypse. The current Republican leadership IS the economic apocalypse.
Funny how nobody considers work and land redistrubution of wealth. Only
redistribution of fiat currency as important in the discussion. I'm
sure God meant for there to be an elete class that owns and controls everything
and isn't required to sweat or even pay taxes in fiat currency. Please give me
the reference when you find it.
The plan that Obama has proposed seems reasonable and sound; make cuts and raise
taxes. Why must we keep subsidizing the wealthy? Taxes are the lowest in 60
years, yet no matter how horrible the economy, the GOP keeps calling for more
cuts, in what the "haves" must pay. It looks to me like the GOP is
more about making Obama look bad than they are about solving the problem; in
fact, I believe that they are willing to destroy our economy for political gain.
McConnell's and Boehner's ridiculous statements that "Obama must go before
we can fix this" or that "Obama is the single, greatest impediment to
the economy" are merely preludes to the horror of what will be 2012
elections, courtesy of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision.
Reasonable people can find solutions, if they want to do so. Perhaps when
Michelle Bachmann begins investigating "anti-American" politicians in
Washington, she might begin with her own party. BTW, I voted for Nader.
We have both a spending problem AND an income problem. A rational and
appropriate plan must address both. The Democrats are willing to address both,
including putting some of their "sacred cows" on the table. The
Republicans are only willing to play politics, and to heck with the country'sf
welfare. As a registured Republican, albeit one who is disgusted with what her
party is doing right now, my message to my political leaders and party is this
-- stop acting like children, start acting like adults, and work with the
Democrats to get this problem fixed.
These people need to stop with the politics and the posturing and GET TO WORK.
They need to disconnect the debt ceiling thing from all the other political
mumbo-jumbo garbage and STOP OUR COUNTRY FROM GOING INTO DEFAULT. Time is
running out.Has everyone in Washington just gone insane???? Does no
one understand that this is ALREADY APPROVED SPENDING by a Congress from years
ago and the bill is just now coming due??? Does no one understand that this is
NOT the Obama administration's debt, but BUSH'S administration??? Does no one understand the consequences, both financial to the US (would
INCREASE our debt because we'd have to pay more interest in addition to the
principle) and globally (could easily throw us into a REAL depression)???Grow up, Washington. Fix this mess NOW.
If I were an investor in the US, I would have already lost confidence in the
undisciplined spending of the past 2 decades. I would actually feel relieved
that efforts are currently being made to correct this problem.So the
damage has been done by Democratic and Republican congresses, and presidents.
Republicans have correctly identified the spending problem congress
has. By rejecting tax increases and focusing on reducing spending we return to
a course of sanity.Libs want to increase taxes on the wealthy. This
is to rally their base for the upcoming election, and to continue redistribution
of wealth in the country. They state that federal income taxes are only 14.4%,
where they traditionally average 18%. What Libs won't tell you is that 14.4%
only applies to income taxes. If you look at all taxes we pay (state income,
gas, energy, cable, cell/land line phone, property, garbage water, recycling,
sales, social security, medicare, drivers license, car registration, etc. etc.
etc. etc. etc. ....etc.) I am sure we would find that our total tax burden
approaches 50% or more!Obama can't lead or govern. Boehner was wise
to get this done without Obama.
Yes, and if every non-Tea Party politician in Washington magically disappears
tomorrow morning, this'll mean something. Otherwise, this is just more
grandstanding.How much longer can we afford to play games, guys?