GOP blinks on debt limit.

[werepossum]

I don't doubt you're right about technical definitions. But if we're talking government fiscal responsibility, I don't see how anything else matters BUT "the total amount of borrowing we have done per year." It is, after all, the bottom line, isn't it?

The concept of having a "balanced budget" while the total debt increases and the total obligation skyrockets is in my opinion as responsible for our predicament as is our entitlement mentality and our thinking that $800 million is small change. Moving things off-budget and/or cutting a line item only to later make up the difference (usually with a nice bonus) by "emergency spending" just makes things look better (well, less worse) which disinclines us to actually address the problem of deficit spending.

There's not a lot of things for which I give Obama credit, but helping drive the wars into the budget proper is one of those. Spending $500 billion more than we have is even worse if we're patting ourselves on the back for spending "only" $200 billion more than we have.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Please show me where I advocated any tax cuts at this point?



Please show me where I indicated that the wars were a good idea. For bonus points, perhaps you can show me where I ever agreed with massive government spending levels -- under any president.



Please show me where I said the burden should be borne by the working class or elderly. No new taxes means no new taxes for anyone, not one specific group or another.

Nice selective snipping


Show me where you objected to the GWB taxs cuts that helped created the debt we have now and I'll give you some credit.

And your insistance that the solution can only be in spending cuts that can only come from programs that benifit the middle and lower classes and the elderly and reject any tax increases or closing loophole for the wealthy certainly means you expect the burden for fixing the problem to be on the middle class and elderly.

Nice lopsided game you want to play, cut taxes for the rich then when we are broke and can't pay the bills cut spending on the SS and medicare. Any way you slice it thats wealth transfer from the poor, middle and elderly straight to the wealthy. All your spin and lies are just bullshit.

 

[Craig234]

During the Reagan-era SS reform, Al Gore fought valiantly but unsuccessfully for SS trust funds to be actually treated like trust funds, i.e. sequestered in seperate accounts from the general fund but he was overruled. The law and practice for decades now is that SS receipts go right into the general fund.

Blaming that on Obama is to ignore the exact same practice (a practice mandated by law) of a half dozen or so Presidents before him, most of which were GOP.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Right-wing translation: Al Gore claimed he invented Social Security, he's a big liar!

 

[JSt0rm]

right wingers have the memory of a gold fish

 

[Generator]

I can't think of anything more pathetic than a man shirking his responsibilities onto another. This proposal by McConnel begs the question why do we have a senate? If congress just throws are there responsibilities onto the president it pretty much dilutes the whole house of the senate. They are essentially welfare representatives whose job has no purpose.

Obama should slam McConnel back and tell him to do his god damn job.

 

[theeedude]

US Placed on credit rating downgrade watch by Moody's over Republican debt limit shens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...review-for-possible-downgrade-by-moody-s.html

Hope you guys are happy.

 

[Munky]

US Placed on credit rating downgrade watch by Moody's over Republican debt limit shens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...review-for-possible-downgrade-by-moody-s.html

Hope you guys are happy.

In other news, China will downgrade the US no matter what.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ra...agong-says-likely-downgrade-us-even-if-debt-l

 

[woolfe9999]

In the big scheme of things yes the debt is all that matters.

But the president doesn't sign a 'debt' bill he sings a budget that produces a deficit.

The POTUS signs whatever he signs knowing full well the total, aggregate, unvarnished fiscal implications of doing so.

The correct method here makes Obama look worse too, and Clinton. No need to stick to your guns just because it's pretty clear that the *real* shortfall didn't actually decline under Bush as you claimed.

Another point also bears mentioning: it isn't all the fault of any of these POTUSES. Congress plays a role. And so does outside economic forces.

 

[fskimospy]

In other news, China will downgrade the US no matter what.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ra...agong-says-likely-downgrade-us-even-if-debt-l

And China will keep buying our debt until the cows come home, because they can't afford to do anything else.

 

[Munky]

And China will keep buying our debt until the cows come home, because they can't afford to do anything else.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

[fskimospy]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I would be 100% positive about that. The day China stops buying our debt is the day the Chinese economy crashes and burns. They are an export driven economy. The only way they can keep their export levels so high is by an artificial devaluation of their currency. They do that through buying US debt. Unless they've suddenly found a new market to sell to, they need to maintain that exchange rate at all costs.

They need us far more than we need them.

 

[Munky]

I would be 100% positive about that. The day China stops buying our debt is the day the Chinese economy crashes and burns. They are an export driven economy. The only way they can keep their export levels so high is by an artificial devaluation of their currency. They do that through buying US debt. Unless they've suddenly found a new market to sell to, they need to maintain that exchange rate at all costs.

They need us far more than we need them.

China should worry that American lard asses will stop buying their goods? It's not like there isn't a growing number of people in other countries who can afford to buy goods now, including those in China. I would worry about the Consumer/Import economy more than the Producer/Export economy.

 

[ElFenix]

China should worry that American lard asses will stop buying their goods? It's not like there isn't a growing number of people in other countries who can afford to buy goods now, including those in China. I would worry about the Consumer/Import economy more than the Producer/Export economy.

if china stops lending us money to buy chinese stuff, we stop buying chinese stuff. that's ok as china doesn't sell us anything really important, we have inventory, and someone else will later sell us that crap. china suddenly has a lot of factories idling.

which is worse for whom?

 

[Fern]

During the Reagan-era SS reform, Al Gore fought valiantly but unsuccessfully for SS trust funds to be actually treated like trust funds, i.e. sequestered in seperate accounts from the general fund but he was overruled. The law and practice for decades now is that SS receipts go right into the general fund.

Blaming that on Obama is to ignore the exact same practice (a practice mandated by law) of a half dozen or so Presidents before him, most of which were GOP.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

No. That is incorrect. SS funds are placed in their own account.

Read here: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

Fern

 

[GaiaHunter]

I would be 100% positive about that. The day China stops buying our debt is the day the Chinese economy crashes and burns. They are an export driven economy. The only way they can keep their export levels so high is by an artificial devaluation of their currency. They do that through buying US debt. Unless they've suddenly found a new market to sell to, they need to maintain that exchange rate at all costs.

They need us far more than we need them.

Yeah, the Soviet Union was also great with loads of money and no products on their shelves. I guess US will go the same way.

The poor Chinese will have to survive with all the stuff the US aren't buying anymore. It is so hard to consume...

The day China stops buying US debt, US crashes and burns. China will just fall but then get up.

And there is countries with money surplus in the rest of the world as well.

if china stops lending us money to buy chinese stuff, we stop buying chinese stuff. that's ok as china doesn't sell us anything really important, we have inventory, and someone else will later sell us that crap. china suddenly has a lot of factories idling.

which is worse for whom?

Who? US won't have money or purchasing power.

It is better to have idling factories than no factories at all.

 

[Munky]

if china stops lending us money to buy chinese stuff, we stop buying chinese stuff. that's ok as china doesn't sell us anything really important, we have inventory, and someone else will later sell us that crap. china suddenly has a lot of factories idling.

which is worse for whom?

The same argument can be made that someone else will buy Chinese crap if we don't. I'm not convinced it will be worse for them than us.

 

[Jaskalas]

The same argument can be made that someone else will buy Chinese crap if we don't. I'm not convinced it will be worse for them than us.

Not that easy to just find a buyer, plus what price could they purchase it at? Our replacement will not have the same purchasing power.

 

[Fern]

Obama is playing the same game as the Repubs. He needs a tax increase on the rich to satisfy his base who were pissed off when the Bush tax cuts were extended.

I haven't seen any indication he's willing to compromise on that.

McConnell plan looks stupid to me. If he gets that passed I think he'll quickly find out Obama won't be taking all the blame, he and the Repubs who helped pass it are gonna catch hell from their base.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

The same argument can be made that someone else will buy Chinese crap if we don't. I'm not convinced it will be worse for them than us.

We're less than a quarter of Chinese exports now.
http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html

China holds about a quarter of our debt, and is slowly backing off.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Hard to believe that China needs us worse than we need China. Some people are truly unable to even comprehend that government might not be able to continually spend more money, borrow more money, and tax more money in perpetuity with no bad effects. This is what I call the Magic Cupboard theory of economics; the belief that taxes and government spending both flow from a Magic Cupboard and are therefore not only inexhaustible, but utterly without any causal relationship to anything in the mundane real world. If you raise taxes and remove more money from the private sector, it will still save and spend just as much money as before. If government borrows more money, it doesn't matter because government debt is "different". Maybe government will have a greater debt service requirement, but it can always just borrow more money to cover it. Only lowering taxes or heaven forbid, lowering government spending can have bad effects.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama is playig the same game as the Repubs. He needs a tax increase on the rich to satisfy his base who were pissed off when the Bush tax cuts were extended.

I haven't seen any indication he's willing to compromise on that.

McConnell plan looks stupid to me. If he gets that passed I think he'll quickly find out Obama won't be taking all the blame, he and the Repubs who helped pass it are gonna catch hell from their base.

Fern

They are not playing the same game. Obama has specifically offered to compromise on cuts to programs that Democrats consider to be a priority. Republicans have offered to compromise on literally nothing.

 

[Craig234]

How does the Mcconnell plan work?

It doesn't make sense if Congress passes a bill saying the President does NOT have the right to raise the ceiling and he vetoes it, then he has the right.

If Congress passes a law saying 'we're not going to budget $1 billion for beer research', and Obama vetoes it, does that mean the money is budgeted? It makes no sense.

 

[Fern]

They are not playing the same game. Obama has specifically offered to compromise on cuts to programs that Democrats consider to be a priority. Republicans have offered to compromise on literally nothing.

We'll just have to disagree.

Looks to me like he's insisting on tax hikes for the rich, and the Repubs are insisting we don't.

Plain and simple, both sides are uncompromising.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

We'll just have to disagree.

Looks to me like he's insisting on tax hikes for the rich, and the Repubs are insisting we don't.

Plain and simple, both sides are uncompromising.

Fern

You're clueless. Your version: Side A compromises on 20 things and not on one. Side B compromises on 0 things. You say 'both sides are uncompromising'.

You are claiming that if Democrats meet Republicans 95% of the way of what they want - however radical that might be - and Republics don't budge, they're the same.

 

[fskimospy]

We'll just have to disagree.

Looks to me like he's insisting on tax hikes for the rich, and the Repubs are insisting we don't.

Plain and simple, both sides are uncompromising.

Fern

Why would you ignore the entire rest of the deal in your analysis? Do you believe that the Republicans and Democrats both want to cut social programs to the same levels? You have one side that has compromised on a whole ton already and is basically saying 'we cant give away the whole farm on this', and the other side who has compromised on nothing. It's not really an 'agree to disagree' thing, it's simply reality. Or can you think of something the Republicans have compromised on?

What would a compromise from the Democratic side look like anyway? Just giving into all of the Republican demands?

 

[Craig234]

What would a compromise from the Democratic side look like anyway? Just giving into all of the Republican demands?

That's not enough.

The original Republican position was for an 85/15 spending cut/revenue split, after it was 50/50 in the 90's.

But when Democrats basically gave them everything they wanted, they said 'changed our minds, now it's zero% revenue'.

So, giving in to all their demands isn't a compromise.