Fear Monger-in-Chief

170 replies [Last post]
carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
My optimistic view

I believe the teahadists have done politically that which they accuse others of doing economically, and that is overspending their political capital and by a goodly margin. They shed their sheeps' clothing and revealed their wolfishness way too early, before they had both houses of congress under firm control.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
JeffC

Why was George W. Bush able to spend money to fight the current wars "off the books," and yet President Obama seems to be reluctant to do that to pay our current bills?

Why did the Credit ranking people not downgrade Bush's credit spending by unauthorized debt?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
JeffC - Correct

"Boehner can deliver nothing."

This is very true, this is what elections do they put people into power with an agenda.

It upsets the establishment, vested interests, debt limits, and the "normal" way things are done in Washington.

You're also right about debt limits being raised and not being raised, problem is that it was just a few years ago that the argument was the other way around. The Democrats were the ones not wanting to raise the limit. So, what's happened in the meantime? Nothing but power shifting by political parties, that's all.

Our disorderly fiscal house has caught up to us JeffC, we all knew it couldn't last forever. The day of "big government" is about to collapse around our heads.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
PTC Observer. Democrats never pulled this stunt with the debt

limit. We never put The Nation's credit rating in jeopardy. Ever. The Tea Party candidates are either ignorant or they just don't care. It is amazing to hear taxpayer funded representatives encouraging our nation to default on our debts.
and the cap and balance kabooky dance? Do you realize that had we had a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, the Bush tax cuts would never have happened because they were not revenue neutral? Yes, the tax cuts the GOP is now willing to damage our economy to protect. There would be no Ryan plan because even it requires deficit spending. There would have been no war against terrorism because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not paid for. No medicare part D. Probably no Katrina response. No federal payments to 9/11 victims. No freeing up of the financial markets in 2008. None of these things were revenue neutral.

The GOP needs to start thinking farther than one move down the chess board my friend.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
kevink - one move on the chess board

Please don't confuse me with a supporter of the GOP, both parties are to blame for what we are about to experience. Party above country? Depends on which party your in, both are corrupt and it's the American people that have been the cause of our pending collapse. Demanding government provide for us in every possible event at the expense of another individual will destroy us.

Watch this kevink, I am tired of trying to get the message across but maybe if you watch this video you will get the picture of what we are facing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrejV46vl0A

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
PTC Observer. I'm just a bit more optimistic about our course..

provided the Tea Party doesn't stuff a rag in our fuel tank and light it :-D

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
kevink - OK

be as optimistic as you dare.

Fiscally the tea party is on the right track, but it will take a Constitutional Amendment to solve it and it won't solve it for many decades.

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing.” — Thomas Jefferson

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

EXCELLENT! During and after WWII, we all accepted that WE were Uncle Sam, the American people - and WE tightened our belts. Special interests/corporations have made a lot of money off of the American people - and
we have been unwise in our spending/lending/borrowing. WE all have to make corrections - why are you giving some of US (special interests, etc.) a pass?

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Who said they had it right?

I'm wondering how high it can go with out serious problems.

Seriously.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
SPY - USA debt limit

Here is something you should know, it's not fiction, it's not politics, it's economics in the 21st Century.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrejV46vl0A

This is what I have been attempting to explain in my posts here. It is likely that this video can do a better job with those on this board.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
HOW HIGH

The actual number that is the top is certainly unknown due to many variables! It only gets into trouble when congress decides to lower it for whatever reason---usually political reasons.

Ronald Reagan and W. Bush allowed it to be raised the most time, combined.

But as to when it might be the limit, that will only occur when the bonds can no longer be sold, or they have to pay so much interest that we can't pay the interest.

There is always a devaluation of the dollar to use.

Heck, General Electric owes a ton of money! So do all banks.

Individuals get into trouble first with too much debt.

Actually there is no limit to credit as long as you can get it.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
No plan from Prezbo. Not one. Not one at all.

The technique Prezbo is using here is to get the Republicans to put forth a plan then Prezbo or his minions can ridicule it by playing class warfare. It is all he has left. If Prezbo actually had a real plan with numbers and all, the Republicans would ridicule it because of the tax the rich (meaning 6-figure incomes) schemes - like corporate jet taxes.Really.

Prezbo did submit a budget a while back and it was voted down by both Dems and Republicans with 0 supporting votes. That's why he won't be submitted a plan. In Soros' twisted mind or whoever is pulling Obama's strings, this all must have something to do with the 2012 election. That Friday 6PM blame the other side thing on TV from Obama was painful to watch. He's digging himself in deeper. Maybe it is all a set up for another Dem to challenge him for the nomination. That's the only sense I can make out of it. Hillary maybe?
Or maybe they are trying for a stock market crash so they take that over to "protect the middle class investors" and roll everybody into Social Security. Sort of what they did with the Delta pilot pensions after the bankruptcy. Are the Dems really that devious?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
RWM - Never

"Never let a good crisis go wasted."

So, the answer to the question, "Are the Dems really that devious?", is.....

yes.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Obama's plan....get re-elected and that's all

Real simple: whatever he thinks will get him re-elected is the position he will take. He's more flexible than Romney.

This is the same hysterical "outsider" who voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling during his brief time as an elected politician that now thinks it is definitely the end of the world if it isn't raised. He has hadn't changed his views..it's just now he's the "insider" and now not some community organizer "outsider" who can disregard the ramifications of his vote or public statements.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
NUK: No, it's the TEA House people.......

........who are scaring the rest about re-election!

He may not "has hadn't" changed his views and disregard the ramificationsof his vote (he votes)?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
RWM: you must have missed what.........

....the democrats and President want! (I added a little)

I have seen it several times: (it is the congress' business to work out the details!)

Here it is:

Let the special tax benefits expire for corporations. Add a small increase in taxes for people making over $250-300,000 per year.

Leave social security alone for anyone over 50---increase the contributions for the rest of the workers, and their companies.
Increase the retirement age but make it difficult for companies to fire them before that.

Cut the new health plan costs by re-organizing the method of payment to hospitals, pharma companies, and doctors. Set up Triage centers everywhere to sort complaints as to need. (Done by private companies).

Create a "go to the moon" group to create jobs. This financed by interest paying bonds guaranteed by the states.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
JeffC, the "tax increases on the wealthy" is political retoric

and will do nothing to increase revenue in a substantial way.

It's is however a tax increase and the GOP is against increasing taxes on wealthy or whoever.

If Obama has $100,000 he doesn't need then he is free to donate it.

But let's see $4,000,000,000,000 divided by $100,000 equals 40,000,000 (that's 40 million) rich people would have to be taxed an additional $100,000 each to pay that much down in one year.

If it was paid over a 10 year period you could either;
a) cut the tax amount on that 40,000,000 rich people down to $10,000 per year or;
b) reduce the number of rich people to be taxed an extra $100,000 per year down to 4,000,000.

The debt now is over $14,000,000,000,000.

If you could find that many "rich people" that plan would take 35 years to balance the budget.

Even then you have to find that many "rich people" and I think it will boil down to anyone making over $50,000 per year paying dramatically more taxes.

Now , it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is impractical if not impossible.

But it would take a fool to present it or agree to it.

The ONLY practical way to gain control of the budget problem is to dramatically cut spending right away and continuously.

It will also take educating the public that the government cannot provide their every whim.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
BHH

OK, then the rest of us (300,000,000) working people and families, can pay it, I suppose! As we always have.

Seems they should pay enough to hurt just as we do!

Whereas 25% (including Social Security and Medicare) is a great sum to pay for the average working salaried person ($44,000), it isn't noticeable to the 250,000 AND OVER CROWD! (Most of whom do not make jobs for us). Do you understand???

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
roundabout, there is not 300,000,000 working people

out of 311,000,000 total population.

Do we have 40,000,000 of those who make $250,000 and over?

I doubt it.

And 25% hurts no matter who you are.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Your "mass" is thin, isn;'t it?

I said, "and families," they work and suffer also.

I wouldn't expect you to fathom that however.

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Roundy, excuse me but you are a good one to speak of

thin "mass".

When you just don't get my point and can't convey your own there's no need to try to be insulting.

I can understand that you're not quite with it yet this morning.

Have another cup of coffee and then read it all again.

I feel certain it will eventually be clear to you.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Clarification please

If those who are considered job providers are not going to have their taxes raised so that they can provide jobs, where are the jobs that they are providing the American people now because of this 'tax break'? What drama yesterday . Anxiously awaiting today's climax. Being an activist and a protester does not necessarily qualify one to govern. It's time for both parties to clean house. If everyone here earns more than $250,000 a year - congratulations! Most Americans do not. Those who earn less will not see an increase in taxes, experience some cuts in social security, etc., etc., etc. Oh well, maybe we'll get more clarification on Monday. Interesting lesson for students of politics . . and chess.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What makes

mine yours? What moral authority do you use in this equation?

People who have money have no obligation to use it to create jobs for you or anyone else.

Here's how it's going to turn out DM, the debt limit will be increased because they are all cowards in Washington.

Second thing that will happen is S&P and Moody's will downgrade the USA credit rating to AA, thus creating a financial crisis that we haven't seen since the great depression.

Third thing that will happen.....no one knows, but it's likely not to be good.

Have a nice weekend.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO
Quote:

People who have money have no obligation to use it to create jobs for you or anyone else

So why do certain political groups claim that we should not increase their taxes because they are the 'job providers'?
They have extraordinary tax breaks through loop-holes, etc. The average American cannot take advantage of such legal tactics used to keep their hard earned money in their own accounts. Just asking. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

By the way - during these difficult times - and with these wealthy people having these tax advantages, where are the jobs that certain political parties are protecting? Thanks again.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Don't get

me confused with one of the political party supporters.

The reason we have loop-holes in our tax code is to pay off special interests. Just that simple, both parties use the tax code to garner favors and votes from these special interests. The more complicated that the tax code is the better they can hide their agenda. The tax code is just another way to use power for getting re-elected, speaking fees, and after "service" jobs.

Taxing the wealthy in favor of some other group is better known as robbery, redistribution, etc. It is immoral and against private property rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Where are the jobs? The jobs are offshore and they are going to stay there as long as we aren't competitive in a world economy. Part of being competitive is to have our financial house in order.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

YUP!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO, You Need to Think More

and regurgitate less! As seen with the case of the latchkey kid, the right to life and property rights are more complex than what your noggin can grasp! What do you propose we do with throw-away kids like in Brazil, India, and other such places? Do you think the state should coerce parents to provide for children even if they do not want to or have the means to? What if the parents are deceased? Should poor, illiterate parents in sub-Saharan Africa have their property rights infringed on by the government to provide for their children although it would mean their own demise? If one has a right to life, then they have a right to life-sustaining goods, beginning with water and food. If those are not present, do you propose that the government coerce citizens through taxation to provide those life-sustaining goods? You speak of the right to life and property rights as being unalienable and universal, but in reality they only work in affluent areas. Sounds to me like you are in favor of positive rights, which are anathema to all good and true classical liberals!

Classical Liberalism is the great fiction by which socially inept people find a reason to periodically gather in Auburn, Alabama, for reasons other than college football!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Ninja - Nope

Nope, as I have already told you I am an Antininjaist.

Ninjaism - The philosophy of believing that government should have a significant role in our lives, that the level of government services are just about right no matter how big and abusive it becomes. One of its primary tenets is that government has every right to redistribute wealth based on the needs of its citizen’s social needs. Ninjaists have the desire and need to ignore the realities of the economic world. They typically do this by burying their heads up their own posterior or by diverting their attention to reality by watching sporting events. Ninjaists, despite their need to prove all things rational, irrational, they are in fact rational themselves, although they deny this. They have a compelling and obsessive desire to disprove the ideas of Austrian economics. This is an endeavor that a Ninjaist is intellectually unable to achieve which frustrates them and makes them even more obsessed. Typically Ninjaists attack things that are counter to their philosophy in superficial ways using absurdity as a method of argument. Unfortunately, for their family and friends, the negative outcomes associated with Ninjaism and other socialist based philosophies come at their expense. Ninjaist see nothing morally wrong with it this fact. Ninjaism is always devoid of any new ideas or concepts that could have a meaningful impact on our lives or the lives of those around them.

Antinijaism - A philosophy that considers Ninjaism as simplistic and more importantly meaningless in scheme of things. This owing to the fact that Ninjaism is devoid of any new ideas or concepts. Thus, Antinigaists typically ignore the tenets of Ninjasim and take ramblings from Ninjaists with a grain of salt and mild amusement.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
PTCO, I Have Taken You

to the precipice and shown you the moral morass that is classical liberalism. Perhaps you now have some more things to ponder than the Mises Daily. If not, there is always the Braves! Beat those Cincinnati Communists tonight!

Classical liberalism is the great fiction by which Lew Rockwell set himself up for life at the expense of the gullible, naive, and ignorant.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Doing Some More Thinking About

Lew Rockwell. I have always wondered how mises.org went from a small organization to the money machine it is today. I would guess Margit von Mises had very little money to initially fund the organization, as Luddy was into writing about money not making it. In researching this, I came across this article in reason magazine. Pretty interesting stuff about Lew, Ron, and old Murray.

You spend much time down in Auburn PTCO? I'm starting to wonder why you post so much about Luddy here. Hmm...

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Classical Liberalism is a great fiction resurrected by disaffected white guys as a way to feel more important than that provided by their actual social position.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Saying do it my way is not a plan Jeff

One that no one can read see or commit to.

They just want to do what they did to Reagan and Bush. PROMISE a decrease in spending then lie about doing so.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

We should see specifics sometime this week - a plan forged by McConnell and Reid. At last - hopefully working together. If they are successful, bully pulpit worked. If not - Repubs will be assigned the blame by most Americans. Inquiring minds are waiting!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
The Republican have presented plan after plan.

It's the lazy, worthless Democrats that refuse to do any planning that does not include more taxes and more inept government.

At least the Republicans recognize that increased government cannot solve our problems.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Obama's Proposal: Increase Debt $2.7 Trillion Over Decade

Obama's Proposal: Increase Debt Extra $26B This Year, $83B Next Year, $2.7T Over Decade

.....the only budget proposal President Obama's has publicly revealed in 2011 would, according to the CBO, increase the deficit by $26 billion this year, $83 billion next year, and $2.7 trillion over the next decade.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Latest news on Congress action/inaction
Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Oou

Obama doesn't have a plan - then what in the Sam hill are the Republicans saying no to?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
grizz

The President has NO SAY in the issuance of any of those checks.

Congress passed the law and a Budget people issue the checks per the law if they have money!

Can't you just see him approving and signing 70,000,000 checks every month?

Balderdash!

justacitizen
justacitizen's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2009
WOW I agree with round

You are correct. Why did he use this as a threat if he had no control over it. Says a lot about the man. Enough said.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
I hope he does Grizz

All of your suggestions, enacted by Congress not requested by Obama, might make up 1% of Social Security. I hope Obama stops Social Security and Medicare payments and then goes on TV to ask people to please contact the Republicans in the House to ask them to vote for raising the debt limit. Let's see some hardball politics instead of Obama caving on every issue.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff So you want to hurt Seniors for political gain?
JeffC wrote:

I hope Obama stops Social Security and Medicare payments and then goes on TV to ask people to please contact the Republicans in the House to ask them to vote for raising the debt limit. Let's see some hardball politics instead of Obama caving on every issue.

See how it works.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
OOU - and Jeff

I don't think Jeff wants to do this, I think he wants the government to take care of people. That's the problem, dependency on the government and no personal responsibility.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Government

Should be of the people, by the people, for the people. What is going on in DC is government by special interest, of special interest, for special interest. The people of the world and the US stock market are watching. The family of fiscal conservatives pay their bills and work cooperatively in reducing debt and working towards a balanced budget. It used to be that there were leaders on both sides who worked for the people. ( the government). Now it appears they work for special interests and re-election.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - special interests
Davids mom wrote:

Now it appears they work for special interests and re-election.

Well all I can say is it took you long enough to admit it.

However, one small point of clarification, both parties do this.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Clarification PTCO?
Quote:

It used to be that there were leaders on both sides who worked for the people. ( the government). Now it appears they work for special interests and re-election.

Your comprehension and selective editing is so,so transparent.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
If there is no money OOU

The Republicans are the ones not allowing the debt ceiling to be raised. Why should Obama protect them from their obstinate folly. Actions have consequences.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
Yes Jeff, actions do have consequences

As per today’s WSJ
"Obama Owns the Debt-Ceiling Fiasco"

"It doesn't help that he's declared high-speed rail and even unspent stimulus funds as untouchable."

"Obama's "untouchable" list includes his $1 trillion health-care reform, $128 billion in unspent stimulus funds, education and training outlays, his $53 billion high-speed rail proposal, spending on "green" jobs and student loans, and virtually any structural changes to entitlements except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals."

Jeff, I would suggest that you should stop reading the “Israeli Times” as your source for news about the current state of the U.S. economy.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Bah bad_ptc

Despite what Rupert Murdock tells the WSJ to print, the polls I've seen all blame the Republicans for the stalemate by between 58%-67%. The Republicans decided that the debt ceiling was a good ploy against Obama; this after raising the limit seven times under Bush. The crisis is totally artificial. There is no linkage between the debt ceiling and the budget except in the political philosophy of the Republicans in the House. If they're so centered on the debt, then they get to write next years budget. They can take it up there. Instead, they are undermining the credit and standing of the United States of America because they are putting their partisan politics ahead of their duty to the country.

So the Republicans in the House are soon going to pass legislation allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own, with Congress having a vote to disapprove. Obama will raise the debt, to protect the credit of the United States, the House Republicans will vote against it, then Obama will veto their disapproval. The credit standing of the USA is saved and the R's get to tell their gullible followers they voted against it. Plus, they get to excoriate Obama when he raises the debt limit, ignoring their own collusion.

We Dems are waiting to see what he does, cave-in again or start pushing back.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Congress Jeff

"So the Republicans in the House are soon going to pass legislation allowing Obama to raise the debt limit on his own, with Congress having a vote to disapprove."

The Congress is full of spineless fools, luckily they have a fool in the White House to help them along.

They all need to be turned out in the next election. If they are in office they need to leave in 2012. We can't do worse.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
OK Jeff, I'll play

Whats wrong with cutting spending dollar for dollar in line with raising the debt ceiling? Where is the money going to come from for an annual increase in the budget of 1.1 T for the next ten years?

If the Govt. taxes the wealthiest 2% 100% for 10 years, we still couldn't pay it off.

P.S. after the first year the wealthiest 2% wouldn't be the wealthiest 2% anymore. After year three they'll be coming for you and me.

How do you suppose Bush can be blamed for that one?

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Thanks for playing bad_ptc

Here's the thing. The R's turned down a 4:1 deal not 1:1 like you've proposed. Here's what I think after doing an acceptable amount of research to have an (to me) informed opinion. There are facts based on 50 years of modern economics and, sadly, they mostly support the classic Republican position. It seems that the optimum formula for the US to pay off debt is a 65% spending cuts and 35% taxes, however you want to label them, revenue enhancers, whatever. We understand what we're talking about, right? Tax increases on somebody to make up that 35%.

So I am, surprisingly, uping your 50/50 proposal.

I object on the grounds that the Rs have arbitrarily dragged the debt limit into a political negotiation and blithely seem unconcerned about the consequences of the US being pushed into default for their political intransigence. They seem to be willing to damage the country, saying that the United States of America cannot pay its debts. And for no reason at all except for political posturing. The debt limit was raised 7 times under Bush.

I find it outrageous! And there will be a cynical deal to resolve it.

These hard-line House Republicans have the Constitutional duty to produce next years budget. That's where the fight should be, not having the United States of America humiliated by defaulting on our debts.

The debt/budget issue is politics, resolve it as usual. The Rs have escalated the issue into a question of the solvency of the country and our international reputation. Outrageous! I object to the venue that they have taken the fight to.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Where are the specifics

Jeff if you went to purchase a house would you do so sight unseen?

Would you invest in a business venture without a prospectus?

Agreeing to a 4:1 deal with no specifics is no difference. Where in history
has democrats EVER kept their word about cuts?

They did it to Reagan again to H.W. Bush and want to do it now.

Where is the plan? Hyperbole and rhetoric. It's all political kabuki.

bowser
bowser's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2005
bad ptc's "news" item

Just to be clear, the WSJ item cited is not a news article at all.

It is an op-ed piece. By Karl Rove.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
Bowser, where did I say "news" I typed WSJ

I made no attempt to mislead anyone.

Is there some part of the article that you think is factually wrong? The same information has been published by several "newspapers" for several months now.

Try and google, "obama, untouchable, budget" and see for yourself.

So much for, "everything is on the table".

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Jeff all Obama has to do is prioritize spending

So they close the National Parks, let off the NON-ESSENTIAL employees of Government. In my opinion that's all of them.

Jeff this one is on Obama no matter what poll you find, but I will place a beer on the table that says Obama will take the fall in November on this if it happens. There is too much time for the real story to get out.

But since you mentioned polls............

"Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post found that 47 percent of Americans are more concerned about the effects of raising the debt ceiling, compared to 42 percent of Americans who are more concerned about the consequences of not raising it."

"Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May."

Evil Elvis
Evil Elvis's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/19/2008
What gets paid in "default" mode

Oddly, Treasuries will still get paid after August 2 -- regardless what happens to the debt ceiling. Funny, eh? Not really funny ha-ha though.

FTW, if you have to borrow to make interest payments, you are already -- for all practical purposes -- in default.

I'm all for the unspoken but ever-present third option: Cancel the debt (much of it, that is). It's amazingly easy and has been done before.

Let Moody's pound salt. Their ratings system only indicates a country's willingness to incur debt anyway. The Bernank can pound salt too.

... But on a more serious note, I'm sure you impressive economic thinkers have noticed the relative stability of 10 Year yields so ... worry not about a "default". Now, if that sucka spikes ... BTFD.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
.

.

bad_ptc
bad_ptc's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2006
Deleted

.

blowback
blowback's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2009
Wanted Railroad Job

Save the stock market at all costs. Banks need help, again. Fanny and Freddy must hold all mortgages. Obama will declair an national emergency bypassing the legeistiative branch. Put America first not the FED, World Bank, G-8, G-20, INF. End giving blackmail to useless allies. VOTE Dr.Ron Paul 2012

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
blowhard

And how would Paul guide us through the DEPESSION he almost certainly would cause immediately?

Heck, Obama could have done that by closing all of the banks.

Robert W. Morgan
Robert W. Morgan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Like he said - "Eat your peas"

Especially November 2012.
What a terrible dangerous President. Good riddance next year.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Morgan

If you don't eat enough green vegetables, like peas, your whole system gets unhealthy!

If you don't tax the big guys more, then the whole system might fail!

He is only trying to help without robbing the middle!

I suppose one of those "ladies" running for President could do better!
Maybe even a Mormon who has never been successful, not even as governor.
He inherited his dough or stole it from his companies in bonuses.

Now, Mr. Paul would cause world hysteria and maybe that is what we need.
Newt would need at least one more wife before he can be considered. She costs too much.

Giuliani and Newt are promoting their consulting companies only, no chance.

If it were not that the smart conservative possible candidates know that they can not win in 2012, there are several who would make very good candidates.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
And Romney's Father Shredded the Constitution

by being born in Mexico and running for president anyway. No question about that one!

Just Say No To Magic Underwear In The White House!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
"I Won"

Obama to GOP: 'I won'

"I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Some people seem to have short memories. This President told the GOP and America "I won". One of his lackeys told the press that he was ready to "rule" from day one.

This "president" has no plan of action. He couldn't punch his way our of a paper bag. All he wants to do is rule over Americans. He's no leader.
He's a pathetic socialist with no clue as to how to lead the country out of this mess.

The country will be much better off when he is voted out of office next year.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Only 5 1/2 years to go!

If the President has fouled up the USA so badly in 2 1/2 years, just think how bad it will be after his second term! (a sure thing, it appears).

No President can "lead" the country out of such a mess as we have. It will take all of us contributing our efforts and our money to do so.

We tend to support Presidents that we like, and his speeches, more so than we do their positive accomplishments. That is what we did with Bush, Jr.
He said what many wanted to hear while ignoring the things that were severely important. It is also why the TEAS have followers.

We now know that the "dribble down" theory has never worked and did not work this time. Hopefully, it will now be abandoned. We are a nation of people not of fortunes!

However, people need to have regulations and laws that are enforced just as do corporations.

Leaders are for ideas---not paper shufflers and politics.

ptc87
ptc87's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
Presidential statements

President Bush(W) said at a news conference- "I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style." Enough said.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Obama and debt reduction

President Obama is now speaking about the failure of the Republicans, held hostage by the tea party House members, to work in the interest of our nation and agree to a debt reduction package that includes modest revenue increases.

I want to thank the Citizen for its fawning coverage of tea party activities in our county which in part contributed to this disaster at the national level.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
lion

Ah yes, those Folks at The Citizen are truly evil and yet.... they allow you to post your inane "progressive" drivel on these blogs.

Those tea party people really scare all you socialists, don't they?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gimme mine and spend class squeals

Yep Thanks to the Teaparty we just might be winning the battle for a fiscal turn around in DC.

Those poor progressives can't spend us to death. Too bad so sad.

lettinguno
lettinguno's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2010
Obama says.....we need

leadership. Now who didn't know that? What an idiot.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
Too true, too true
Quote:

Obama says.....we need
leadership. Now who didn't know that?

Well, look who is talking to for that answer.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

YUP!

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Dear Editor Cal. We need you now more than ever....

We need you to dig up the anti climate change cartoons that you ran most of the winter, and reprint them for us to remind us that the current temperature records being set are of little significance. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma surely has them saved to his laptop.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Record snowfall indicative of AGW hysteria?

Ask kevin he seems to think record heat is indicative of AGW.

Global Warming is real. It happens every year so it's undeniable. Consensus confirmed.

carbonunit52
carbonunit52's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2008
RE: Record snowfall indicative of AGW hysteria?

Well shucks Observerofu, it ain't AGW hysteria that is the cause, it is because warmer air holds more moisture that precipitates as more snow. Whatsa matter, don't ya know nothin'?

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
g35 dude. i answered without offering opinion

As to whether or not we SHOULD. am I wrong?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Kevink
Quote:

As to whether or not we SHOULD. am I wrong?

I'm getting old I guess. I have to admit. I'm lost. Which post are you responding to?

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
G37 IPL dude: This thread has been stretched to capacity.

Reference my statement: We can spend as long as we have credit.

"Are you sure you're not my ex wife?"

Age is a terrible thing. I remember when I was younger and I use to have great mental focus. But now , I just

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Amen Kevink
Quote:

Age is a terrible thing. I remember when I was younger and I use to have great mental focus. But now , I just

Amen my friend, Amen !!!! LOL

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
To everyone

Toomey and group just offered to pay the interest on our loans. If you did that on your credit card payments, what would happen to your credit rating?

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Davids mom- you did not come close to addressing the issue

You either are mentally retarded or senile - which is it?
My point was that nearly 50% of working Americans that use the infrastructure funded by Federal taxpayers pay zero (0, nuthin, nada) Federal income tax.

What is fair about that?

Recent Comments