GOP's Dangerous Debt Ceiling Charade

1. 77

   Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

   From that bastion of lamestream liberalism, TIME.
   Mr. Klein puts it so darned well I couldn't resist posting the whole article. It's not very long. Enjoy!
   Oh, and as we all know, there WAS no vote today (Thursday).
   
   Viewpoint
   Republicans’ Debt Ceiling Charade Is Downright Dangerous
   By Joe Klein Thursday, July 28, 2011 | 568 Comments
      
   Let us not put too fine a point on it: Thursday’s House vote on Speaker John Boehner’s debt ceiling proposal is a joke. If it passes the House, Harry Reid has said it is dead on arrival in the Senate. If it somehow passes the Senate, which it won’t, President Obama will veto it. It is, therefore, a symbolic act that is wasting precious time. It follows last week’s Republican theatrics, the passage of the Cut and Demolish Act (or whatever they called it), which also was a waste of time. These are the actions of a party that has completely lost track of reality–and of a leader, John Boehner, who has lost the support of his party.
   
   And so I have a proposal: the Cut the Crap Act. It will have to be passed by Monday, to avoid default. And it will require an act of statesmanship from Boehner: he will have to modify his proposal and cut loose the Tea Party robots who are opposed to a deal of any kind. He will have to find common cause with Harry Reid and, yes, Nancy Pelosi, who are now willing to propose bills that should make any Teasie happy–bills without “revenue increases,” bills with a trillion dollars in budget cuts, more or less. He will have to find 160 sane members of his caucus and Pelosi will have to find 60 extremely tolerant members of hers to get us past this ridiculous moment.
   
   The Cut the Crap Act isn’t actually my invention. It is the White House’s best case scenario for the next five days. This has been an exhausting process–one that might have resulted in an exhilarating triumph, if the Republican party were not led by nihilists like Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. But one senses that the President is feeling the exhaustion and frustration. He is preparing himself for the worst of all possible scenarios: the uncertainty caused by the Republican anarchy has already damaged the economy, businesses are waiting to see what the interest rates will be and therefore delaying plans to expand. That uncertainty, added to the higher oil prices caused by Arab Spring, the European Debt crisis and the Japanese earthquake could well bring us a double-dip recession.
   
   But the President also seems absolutely intent on forcing this issue because the Republicans have used the debt ceiling weapon to upend the traditional balance of power in Washington. It is the ultimate nuclear option, creating a bigger bang than abuse of the filibuster in the Senate. If this Republican ploy succeeds, this nuclear option can be deployed again on other issues–surgical nuclear strikes directed at the funding of individual government programs and agencies. (Indeed, if she were less scrupulous, Pelosi could have used a debt ceiling vote to force President Bush to defund the war in Iraq.)
   
   And so, here we are. Our nation’s economy and international reputation as the world’s presiding grownup has already been badly damaged. It is a self-inflicted wound of monumental stupidity. I am usually willing to acknowledge that Democrats can be as silly, and hidebound, as Republicans–but not this time. There is zero equivalence here. The vast majority of Democrats have been more than reasonable, more than willing to accept cuts in some of their most valued programs. Given the chance, there was the likelihood that they would have surrendered their most powerful weapon in next year’s election–a Mediscare campaign–by agreeing to some necessary long-term reforms in that program. The President, remarkably, proposed raising the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67.
   
   The Republicans have been willing to concede nothing. Their stand means higher interest rates, fewer jobs created and more destroyed, a general weakening of this country’s standing in the world. Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive, could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.
   
   Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/28/re … z1TStEnqjI

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The great lie in all of this is that we are on the verge of defaulting on our debt.  It is a lie.  The statutory obligations of the United States to service the National Debt, that is paying the interest on bonds that financed the continuous over spending, are easily satisfied with the $200 billion plus in revenue received each month by the treasury.  If there is a default on the debt it will be because the President has said don't pay.
      
      So actual default is not possible - however a prioritizing of what bills to pay will be necessary.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Just curious...
         
         What exactly do you think the National Debt is at? Dollar amount?
         
         And, if you say, just $14 Trillion? Then, apparently you've bought into the misinformation available.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The total obligations of the federal government is some where around $100 trillion.  The $14 trillion figure is the amount of bonds outstanding.

            replyreport
      2. 77

         Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Where did you get this idea? Tea Party Express? Limbaugh?
         
         So the whole Moody's downgrade threat, this week's stock market slide, even business leaders like the head of Walmart expressing concern about default -- what, they are all on the Obama "scara-rama" payroll to instigate this non-crisis?
         
         Really?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Check what Moody's, Standard and Poors and other rating agencies have been saying.  It isn't the "default" it is the debt that concerns them.  They have clearly stated that unless spending is cut by a significant amount (and $1.6 trillion over 10 years isn't significant) than a down grade is certain.
            
            Let me put it more plainly, our Government takes in $2.4 - $2.6 trillion a year and currently spends $3.6 - $3.8.  That cannot be continued forever and that is what is threatening the economy and the bond rating.  It must be addressed and it must be addressed now.
            
            The other lie is the August 2 date.  There is sufficient revenue to pay the legally obliged outlays for the first 2/3rds of the month unless the government gets its act together.  Raising the debt limit with out substantial cuts will cause a down grade in the US bond rating for the first time ever.
            
            It is likely to go from AAA to AA.  Way to go Barry, your genius has resulted in something that hasn't happened in 80 years.  Not even GWB was so inept.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               After all of the things that have happened, how the GOP have acted...claiming that merely showing up for the debate is all they have to give...and you want to claim it is Obama that is causing this? Come on dude.  Don't be an ideologue...be real. "Your team sucks" isn't the way to have a real debate and solve problems. Let's get real here.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh sorry did you get your feelings hurt.  Let me make myself completely and perfectly clear.  I will be put against a wall and shot before I vote for Barrack Obama or anyone else who supports him, his policies or his political and economic philosophy.  I think "your team sucks" is far too timid and entirely inaccurate.  I stopped seeing any of this in terms of teams a long time ago.  The complexities of economics evades Democrats and liberals resulting in an inevitable end to liberty.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL, UCV.
                     As opposed to the economically sophisticated tea partiers....
                     Cap. Cut. Balance.
                     Cut. Cap. Balance.
                     Balance. Cut. Cap.
                     Crap. Crap. Crap.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks for the proof.  See you in the potato line.

                        replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Its much better than the democrat mantra.
                        
                        "Spend, spend, spend its not like its our money."
                        
                        By the way, how did that stimulus work for the Bamster?
                        
                        Got us right out of that recession didn't it?
                        
                        I am amazed that anyone would still defend that loser.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           This thread has nothing to do with Obama. It is about the game of chicken being played by the far right.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Obama has been spending more money than any other president ever.
                              
                              We are now $110+ Trillion in debt.
                              
                              Yeah, sure. It isn't COMPLETELY Obama's fault, but he sure as hell isn't trying to fix the problem.
                              
                              Obama: "My fellow Americans. Remember how we owe people $114 Trillion or more? Well, If you just give me the power to spend another $3 trillion or so, everything in the world will be great. Trust me, I'm swagged out!"
                              
                              Boehner: "My fellow idiots... i mean Americans. Here's my plan. Remember how we're $114+ Trillion in debt? Well, If we let the president spend about $2 trillion more NOW, then we can 'promise' (I swear my fingers aren't crossed) that over the next 10 years we'll cut spending by like $20 BILLION.....
                              
                              "If you do the math this is like giving a kid who owes someone $200 another $2 in the hopes that he'll give you $2.15 in ten years, thus creating a generous payment plan of $0.015 every year for ten years. My plan is obviously ingenious, and I demand that everyone vote for it. ...
                              
                              ".... oh... please ignore the fact that the inflation rate is somewhere around 4-10% right now, and that this would make the $20 billion we cut REALLY come out to about $10 Billion."
                              
                              Ron Paul: "Remember how we're $114+ Trillion in debt? That's a huge number. If we want to actually pay that back - *IF* we want to pay that back - there are only two courses of action possible. We either need to cut spending horrendously, or we need to print money out of thin air to the point where it isn't worth anything.
                              
                              "Because printing money was the cause of this whole mess, obviously we need to cut spending. Bring the troops home, reduce the welfare state, and let's enjoy freedom!"

                              replyreport
         2. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            By the way, if you can't tell by now, I don't give two figs for anyone's opinion unless I agree with it.  So venture on into your speculation regarding the origin of mine.  I don't even know a Tea Party person.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Perhaps you would find more personal satisfaction/validation in a more homogeneous discussion forum. It must be very annoying for you to constantly have so many dissenting opinions to dismiss.
               
               May I suggest www.circlejerk.com?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Too much fun here.  Liberals provide hours of entertainment for me.  Ever see how Bushmen find water in the Kalahari?  The monkey and the gourd - awesome.  Also not seeking validation.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You missed the point.  I couldn't care less what Limbaugh's opinion is.  Or Sarah Palin's.  Or Larry Kudlow's.  I am not controlled by the opinion of others.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     No. I didn't miss the point.
                     I got it loud and clear.
                     Your opinions come directly from -- wherever it is you get them.
                     The question is, why do you bother posting them here?
                     This is a forum, not a soapbox.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Have you been reading posts here?  A difference without a distinction.  As for opinions, if they do not originate with you than why have one at all.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Sure, I get it.
                           But if they are informed by nothing more than your own delusions, why share them?

                           replyreport
               3. 59

                  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hmmmm, interesting argument.
                  
                  Not very original though.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Ah, the webmaster of said site weighs in.
                     Lovely, as always, to see you, Jim!

                     replyreport
      3. 0

         Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Choosing to pay one bill and not paying another - IS DEFAULTING.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Hardly, there are programs and projects for which payment is not legally required. Perhaps the federal government should do what every business that has trouble paying its bills does.  Reduce all pay, across the board by 10%, cut all staffs by 10%, cut all operational budgets by 10%.  A little belt tightening, a few lay offs, some unpaid vacation days that should help keep the doors open.
            
            Aren't we told that there is tremendous waste in Medicare/Medicaid - why is that not pursued as a way of keeping the shop running?  Isn't it to the tune of several billion?  How about increasing the retirement age by six months?  How about stopping the purely illegal Libyan War?
            
            If I was about to "default" I would be cutting back right now.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               100% correct. This is the game they are playing though. Create a crisis and use it to swamp the system right under. Cloward and Piven set the plan and now the structure is in place and doing its thing.
               
               “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until [a majority of] the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (freebees/welfare) from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy (taxing and spending), and is always followed by a dictatorship.” Alexander Tytler
               
               http://www.newswithviews.com/Duncan/al115.htm
               
               So very true. As we are learning at present.
               
               And another fact is that the credit rating people said 4 trillion in cuts was required... that is only in one plan, Cut Cap and Balance, which is tabled in the Senate.
               
               So Obama and trhe Dems are playing a stupid game.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually the Ryan Budget would have cut even more than the $4trillion with spending remaining flat and then decreasing.  The howling that Ryan's budget gut Medicare/Medicaid is a lie.  If you want to preserve those crappy programs than you had better reform them and right quick because they are going to crush the economy.
                  
                  Why is it that the austerity measure undertaken by Greece are roundly praised by Tim "the tax cheat" Geitner?  Why, if it is Bush's fault, has economic growth ground to a standstill this year? China, COMMUNIST CHINA, is growing faster than we are.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes but it, Ryan's, was defeated and cannot be revived... the Cut Cap and balance is merely tabled and can still be brought to the floor.
                     
                     I am not a big fan of any of the plans so far... they do not go far enough fast enough. In my opinion, you want to be elected and serve you better have a plan which works or shows great progress in the 4 to 8 years you have.
                     
                     And that was the intent of sending all our industries to China. The American Left and Progressives spent decades building China, so as to show off thier great Communist eutopia, our wealth and industry have served them, China, well.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        That is so ridiculous. Hey Mason - who fought the Democrats when they tried to eliminate subsidies (WELFARE) to corporations who sent jobs to China? I'll give you one guess. I have seen YOU, personally, defend it as well.
                        We all know the game...pointing the finger on the very points which you defend. Childish games man, childish games.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           It was and is the American Left and Progressive who have sold us to China.
                           
                           I have said it a thousand times, Tex.
                           
                           You won't find me defending the Republican Progressives.
                           
                           Do try to keep up.
                           
                           I mentioned the Ryan plan simply to illustrate the point that there is no plan as of now that meets the requirements of the ratings agencies to secure our rating except that one. And it is only because it has 4 trillion in spending cuts that makes it the only one.
                           
                           If you go back and read I said straight out I am not a fan of any of those plans... but that is the only one so far that is revivable and will stop the down-grade.
                           
                           Simple.
                           
                           None of them in my opinion go far enough fast enough to do the job. None!
                           
                           Do not confuse me with the Progressive Right. I am an Independent American Conservative, the anti-thesis to your ilk.
                           
                           The plan is working beautifully...
                           
                           http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/ … _of_e.html

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Merely repeating your argument back to me isn't debating. It is saying, "nuh--uh, YOU!". It is what a child does.
                              You defend corporate subsidies to ship jobs overseas. You do this because you think the corporations have no choice, because the minimum wage is just too much to pay. Changing the subject after you say...nuh-uh, is ridiculous.
                              The ratings agencies rated Lehman triple A the day it went down. They had Goldman triple 2 days beforehand. They had Bear Sterns triple A the morning of. You want to talk about the rating agencies while not paying our debts? You want to talk about fiscal responsibility while not paying our debts? You are a piece of work Mason.

                              replyreport
2. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   Yes we all know the Democrats and Obama, are the Party of NO.
   
   And yes, if Obama choose not to pay the 29 billion on the debt, we would default.
   
   All his, Obama's, choice.
   
   I see a lot of layoffs for Govt. Unions coming in the very near future.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Is that why the GOP were at the top of every newspaper in the country labeled as the Party of No?
      You are so transparent Mason. Every single thing that defines the conservatives that is negative, you project. Every single one.
      You really have no shame whatsoever do you?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Actually for those of us who watch the House and Senate... we know that Harry Reid and the Dems are the "Party of no". He, Reid, tables all the bills from the House, and then cries when the Republicans in the Senate won't pass his bill on a simple majority. Well Reid and the Dems should let the House bills go up for a simple majority vote in the Senate... but he knows they will pass and then he and Obama are screwed.
         
         Quite funny actually.
         
         And the Mass Media is not the ones to get the truth from tex.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Texasbetaposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Of course not...those right wing extremist bloggers that you list as resources are the truth givers huh? Dude, you are a joke. Your party is a joke. The ills of this country are at your feet. When the entire country has newspapers with headlines stating GOP: Party of NO...and you start calling the other party that...well, pretty transparent, pretty childish, pretty sad.
            You aren't fooling people Mason. You aren't spreading your message. You are a comic strip.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               All you have to do is watch C-SPAN the House and Senate are there all day every day. They cannot lie about what they have done when we all are watching.
               
               No blogs needed.
               
               Harry Reid and the Dems are playing games and all America klnow the MAss Media is a Leftist joke of dis-information.
               
               Calling me names does not change that FACT tex.
               
               So get over yourself and grow up.
               
               And I get the truth out to many an individual tex... I supply facts...not BS like the Leftists.
               
               And we willnot go into default unless Obama intentionally puts us in default. Simple.

               replyreport
3. 61

   TTanglewoodposted 13 years ago

   Communist China has been growing faster than the US for some time now.  That is not a new development.  The difference is they don't deficit finance.  Of course, we could also artificially undervalue our currency to drive our competitiveness.
   
   Ryan's proposal to reform Medicare is unrealistic because the reason Medicare exists to begin with is that private insurance companies don't want to insure elderly individuals in the first place.  Providing vouchers and putting the remaining costs on the individual will make the cost cheaper for the government, but significantly more for people living longer on less.  And health care costs only keep going up.
   
   The issue at hand isn't the spending cuts.  That has been agreed to on both sides.  The issue is the increasing revenue.  Solving the debt issue has to be a combination of both.  We have been financing our economic growth and tax cuts for the past 30 years by borrowing. 
   
   The new standard should be that tax cuts should only be applied once the budget is in balance and the debt is paid down.  If you had a job and a mortgage, you wouldn't work less hours to make less. 
   
   We wouldn't even be having this discussion if not for the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hasn't QEI and II already devalued our currency?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Not to the levels that the Chinese yuan has been systematically devalued. 
         
         Of course, the Chinese model has been superior to ours in one aspect.  They have become a major economic super-power without the significant defense budget we have.
         
         Of course that is another issue altogether.

         replyreport
   2. 77

      Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes!
      
      And to UCV:
      
      
      
      The government is not a business.
      Unlike businesses, the government can point right now to untapped revenue just sitting there in the Bush tax cuts that should have been expired but Obama caved to GOP pressure.
      
      Am I saying NOT cuts are necesary? No. NO ONE is saying that.
      ALL proposals include tax cuts.
      Does Medicare need reform? Yes -- like melding our seniors into a UNIVERSAL plan that covers ALL Americans so they're not singled out as highest-risk health care consumers charged astronomical rates....
      
      Right now, we need to show the world we are not a deadbeat country.
      You think this is a game being played by Obama and the Dems?
      Maybe you SHOULD pay more attention to other opinions besides your own...

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What GOP pressure was available.  Obama had majorities in both houses.  Untapped revenue?  Really don't you mean unconfiscated property?  Do you understand what happens in an economy when government increases taxes?  One reason there is so much liquidity in businesses and banks is fear of increased taxes and the threatening regulatory environment. 
         
         The Democrats had total control of the State during Obama's first two years why was nothing done to address this economic problem?  Do you really think he is that useless and ineffectual?  He couldn't get anything done with the total Mechanism of the government at his disposal?
         
         So GWB was a more effective President than Obama?

         replyreport
      2. 61

         TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         GOP pressure in the form of filibusters on voting on the extension of unemployment benefits. 
         
         The fact is, the GOP is willing to see the entire country go down in flames before they would see Obama get credit for getting anything accomplished.  The only way for any GOP candidate to have a shot in 2012 is if the economy is still in shambles.
         The Democrats have done their part to fix the economy.  Companies are currently liquid, profitable and flush with cash.  The stock market has regained most of its losses from the bottom of the Great Recession.
         
         Unfortunately for all Americans, right and left, we currently have a Mexican standoff between businesses and consumers.  Consumers have curtailed spending because of uncertainty about jobs.  Companies are not hiring because demand hasn't dictated increasing payroll.  All of this while consumers cut the personal debt that kept the economy afloat for six years.
         
         Until consumer demand outpaces current worker efficiency, we will not see jobs returning en mass. 
         
         As for the GWB comparison, he held party majority in both houses for 6 of his 8 years at the helm.  He certainly had a competitive advantage from that standpoint.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            In correct, Republicans controlled the House for 6 of the 8 but never controlled the Senate.  It takes 60 votes to control the Senate, given the filibuster rules.  Obama had complete control in both houses, requiring no Republican input what so ever, for most of his first year and then still held 59 of 100 seats until the November 2010 elections.
            
            As for the country going down in flames, it will eventually, better to do it now.  Bubbles that get re-inflated cause far more damage when they finally pop and raising the Debt Ceiling is merely re-inflating that bubble, as was TARP and Stimulus one and two and QEI and QEII.  We are living in a bubble economy and when it finally breaks all hell will rain down.  Can you say Great Depression - history is repeating itself in pattern if not in specifics.
            
            We have an arrogant, know it all President manipulating the economy with wild flailing and failing programs shackling the "animal spirits" and killing the economy.  When it goes baby look out.  Would have been best if GWB had let it burn in 2007 rather than putting the first daisy in the bail out chain.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               It takes 60 votes to have a supermajority in the Senate.  But a majority starts at 51.  My statement wasn't about being filibuster proof.  It was that they held the majority.  That is a true statement.  From 2000 to 2006, the GOP held a majority edge as Dick Cheney gave them the tie breaking vote.
               
               Obama managed to have a super majority for 7 months.  Ted Kennedy's death on Aug 25th resulted in losing a critical vote to move his agenda forward.  Since Democrats has lost the super majority advantage, the GOP has utilized every tool at its disposal to disrupt, delay or derail any proposal put forth.
               
               Ironically enough, the major issue conservatives have with the health care bill is the individual mandate.  Which was originally a conservative idea.  Even more ironic is that many of the Blue Dog Democrats who hailed from traditionally conservative districts and broke with their party line on several issues and who were up for re election, were defeated.  Blue Dogs lost half of their reelection bids.
               
               The economy isn't being manipulated by one man.  If it was, unemployment would be back at pre recession levels.  Obama is well aware that it's still "the economy stupid."  The performance of the economy is the one issue that the GOP can still hammer him on. 
               
               The irony of all this is that as long as we allow big business to write its own rules, we will continue to have these crashes.  Every major downturn has been either big banking or big oil driven. 
               
               The only exception being maybe the post 9/11 recession.

               replyreport
4. 61

   TTanglewoodposted 13 years ago

   BTW, Mighty Mom, the total obligations of the federal government are approximately $61.6 Trillion.  They are right about that number.  It actually uses the General Accepted Accounting Principles standard of recording future liabilities.
   
   The increase is driven mainly by increase in commitments to fund Medicare and Social Security. 
   
   The issue I have with that method is that while it accounts for the future Costs in present day terms, I haven't seen any articles that account for the future Revenue that those costs will be balanced against when they are realized.  As such the statement that has been made is correct but misleading as it only presents one side of a two factor equation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As of this year Social Security is paying out more than it is bringing in.  It is a ponzi scheme and has been on a demographics collision course for over 20 years.  I remember the SS reforms from the early 80s.  It was just another game of kick the can.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That is correct.  But according to the SSI Trustees Report, that too is a two factor equation.  Less funds going into the fund due to high unemployment, while more funds going out due to Baby Boomers retiring. 
         
         I actually agree that the SS attainment age needs to be raised.  When originally created, SSI was scheduled to kick in a year after the average American died.  Without adjusting for the increase in life expectancy, SS cannot remain a viable floor for the elderly.
         
         That said, simple changes can make the program more sustainable long term.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Republican's have been pushing for SS reform for decades.  An increase of 6 months per year for the next five years will do a great deal to stave off an inevitable collapse and buy time to increase the scope and reach of alternative, privately held retirement plans.  The reason to resist an individually held, privately owned retirement plan is that it takes control away from the state.  Governments are about control.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Privately held retirement plans are for maintaining a similar level of lifestyle in retirement.  And younger workers should have some sort of plan in place to achieve that. 
               
               But SS has never been about replacing working income as it has been about providing a minimum standard of living.
               
               I for one am even more wary of the "free" market as I am of government.  When left unchecked, the profit motive of big business has proven to run counter to the general benefit of the citizenry.  The reason to resist privately owned retirement plans is because I don't trust big business either.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So you do not trust yourself - because business is the practice of every citizen in a market economy.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't trust big business. 
                     
                     There is a difference between the consumer and the large companies that seem to be wielding ever increasing power over the average citizen.  Consumption is the practice of every citizen in a market economy.  Without consumption, we get the stagnation we are currently witnessing in today's economy.

                     replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   Yes the dept dumb, cuts for the poor on the table, cuts for how many wars nobody even knows- off the table.

   replyreport
6. 60

   uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

   Keynes is a disaster.
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzm … r_embedded

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      As is "trickle down". 
      
      Can we agree that the experts know nothing?
      
      The government's budget should adhere to the same principles as a family's.
      
      When I did credit counseling I always recommended a two prong approach to debt reduction.  Lower bills, increase income.
      
      I believe that any serious discussion about the debt has to include BOTH sides of the coin.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No, the idea that a distant state can control an economy is patently absurd whereas the misnamed Trickle Down more reasonably mirrors those things that actually occur in an economy.  Economies are not effectively controlled from the top down.  The power of an economy is its vast, all encompassing and organic base.
         
         The reason why most economists and politicians don't want to admit this is the same reason parents don't want their children to grow up.  The controlled is predictable and caution reigns.  The free is unpredictable and chaotic.  Those who desire control see freedom as dangerous, hence the economic policies of liberals.
         
         The hundreds of billions of annual economic decisions of a free citizenry in a free market are more nimble, better informed, more rational and much more powerful in the aggregate than all the foolish conceit of Presidents and Senators.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How can the point be made that economies cannot be controlled top down? Every business has a top down organizational structure.  As does the aforementioned Chinese economy. 
            
            An economy does require a fair amount of space to operate, innovate and be productive.  But, just as with raising children, it is necessary to set guidelines and parameters. 
            
            The belief that big business will  "self regulate" in its own best interests has been proven to be a fallacious principle over the past decade.  Big business will do what is in its best interest as long as it can get away with it.  What it cannot get away with, it will attempt to affect legislation in order to stack the deck in its favor.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               So, you believe that you are an infant and must be told by someone smarter and better than you what economic decisions you are to make?  Based on what information is a distant authority to make those decisions.  Should they pick out your clothes and prepare your meals also?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  TTanglewoodposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  You actually are mis-representing my metaphor.  I would actually equate big business to a bunch of teenagers.  Old enough to dress and feed themselves, but still undisciplined and self-centered. 
                  
                  There has yet to be a time in this country when an economic crisis was consumer driven.  It has always originated out of the business sector. 
                  
                  As such, I believe that business needs parameters to save it from itself.  The most recent example is the current News Corp practice of hacking voicemails that has resulted in one of the UK's most circulated newspapers shutting their presses off.
                  
                  Did individuals at the News of the World know that what they were doing was wrong? Yes.  Did they think they would get away with it? Probably.  Did they need to have better supervision? Likely.
                  
                  See, unruly teenagers.

                  replyreport
7. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   There's nothing dangerous about what the Republicans are doing. The US has defaulted countless times before.
   
   We're doing it right now - they've printed trillions of dollars out of thin air to repay debts. That's defaulting.
   
   Let it be widely-known to the public: the US is bankrupt.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's what I have been saying all along. It seems like no one wants to see America is BROKE.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         It's hilarious because no one in the media says this.
         
         The US is BEYOND broke. We're so horribly in debt right now.
         
         Imagine this: our entire tax revenue is something like $5 Trillion right now
         
         (according to the chart on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax … _tax_rates )
         
         If we kept this tax rate, and spent ABSOLUTELY NO MONEY WHATSOEVER, it would take us over 22 years to pay the money back -- WITHOUT INFLATION TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
         
         Imagine if that were a family: "Yeah, we'll get so into debt that we won't be allowed to spend money for some 25 years! We'll be fine!"

         replyreport
8. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   There will be no default.
   
   We have the money to pay the debt interest and many other things, including SS and the Military.
   
   The default BS is all on Obama, if he spends the money on something else it is his doing, no one else.

   replyreport
9. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   This entire thread is precisely the problem in America....too much in-fighting among citizens, while politicians and corporations, cut/carve up slices of America for their own personal abuse.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Hollie Thomasposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, divide and rule mentality.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What would you recommend? I refuse to vote for an incumbent, I don't spend money ,but I do have a pitch fork,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

         replyreport
         1. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'll bring the torches.

            replyreport
10. 80

    Wayne Brownposted 13 years ago

    Look, for all the drama that has played out here on both sides of the aisle, this amounts to an argument over how to pay 29 billion dollars in interest. Most of these clowns populating the elected seats in Washington wouldn't give you the time of day for that amount of money. The President is using it as leverage to gain a blank check on future spending of more than two trillion dollars so that he can continue to buy votes at his discretion and simply point his finger at Congress when the complaints come. He had opportunities at agreement only to add more spending demands at the last minute which exceeded more than ten times the amount of money we are concerned about here. The spending cuts proposed have been simply a reduction in the rate of spending over the next ten years which some have said would reduce the debt load by 10 trillon dollars over that time. Well, that sounds good when you put it that way but what it really means is that we end up with a total debt of 40 trillion instead of 50 trillion dollars when it is all said and done...neither one is acceptable in terms of satisfying the debt to asset ratio of this country and it all then comes back to the credit rating scenario. Conversely the right side of the aisle has done no better and is asking for far more action than a leverage point of 29 billion dollars can ever bring...wrong dog, wrong fight. In the end, this drama on both sides of the aisle will accomplish little of nothing except to continue the status quo which is spend, spend, spend...a path to financial destruction any way you add it up. WB

    replyreport
11. 77

    Mighty Momposted 13 years ago

    They must have learned that one from W.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Really, what was the largest budget deficit while Bush was President?  How much did he add to the national debt?  How long did that take?

       replyreport
       1. 77

          Mighty Momposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Bush v. Obama who's the big spender?
          No contest.
          Scroll to the bottom chart, or read the whole thing.
          Either way, there is no doubt that Bush policies -- tax cuts coupled with unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- maxed out the credit card.
          
          http://my.firedoglake.com/rogershuler/2 … o-contest/

          replyreport
12. 60

    uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

    Is that why the National Debt has grown fast under Obama than under GWB?  Nice partisan website.  It is so awesome how liberals treat unplundered money as spending.  More proof, thanks.

    replyreport
13. 60

    uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

    If you are an honest participant and really want to understand more about how all of this work than I have something for you to read.
    
    Seek honest knowledge and you will understand how wrong politicians in a distant capital are not the allies of honest dealings and economic prosperity.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Economics_of_taxation

    replyreport
14. 61

    Moderndayslaveposted 13 years ago

    What are you doing?
    http://rt.com/usa/news/china-us-debt-credit/
    http://rt.com/news/china-us-debt-default/

    replyreport
15. 60

    uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years ago

    Moody's confirms that it isn't about default it is about debt.  Unless someone gets the courage to cut TRILLIONS this year - not over the next "X" number of years - the US faces a down grade in its Bond Rating.  Even a minor down grade means higher interest. 
    
    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/8 … aaa-rating
    
    So what hath Barry wrought?
     
    Inflation is burning through fuel and food budgets.
     
    Increases in taxes would accelerate the diving economy.
     
    GDP growth is perniciously anemic.
     
    Unemployment is deep and intractable.
     
    We are involved in more wars than while GWB was president.
    
      The relationship  between the US and - pick a country - is more problematic now than three years ago.
     
    The oil economy is dieing.
    
      And now Barry's dedication to increasing the National Debt threatens to do what no other President has done - sink the US credit rating.
    
    Way to go Barry.
    
    Don't forget - Gitmo is still open, The Patriot Act was renewed at Barry's request, Don't Ask-Don't Tell was restored at Barry's request,  The "animal spirits" are paralyzed with fear and:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I98KeKV_ … re=related

    replyreport
16. 61

    Moderndayslaveposted 13 years ago

    http://www.inflation.us/

    replyreport
    1. 60

       uncorrectedvisionposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Hyperinflation is predicted by the aggregate actions of the Federal Reserve tripling the money supply and the Federal Government spending over $4 trillion in 2 years.  When the economy finally does heat up and the liquidity held by businesses and banking is set loose we will see double digit inflation. 
       
       Mugabe-nomics always results in the same outcomes.  If you think gas is expensive now wait until the dollar loses another 74% of its value.  Since the creation of the Federal Reserve inflation has been the most frequently employed tax.

       replyreport
17. 61

    slmorganposted 13 years ago

    Take a look at my poem on the debt ceiling, entitled: "Falling Through the Debt Ceiling".

    replyreport