...invoke the 14th Amendment in order to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional approval?
Here is a link that might be useful: What will SCOTUS say?
That is a fascinating 1 and 1/2 year old speculative article.
Can Congress refuse to pay for Bush's out of control spending?
Can they risk our nations credit to blackmail us into destroying social programs that we put into place decades ago and were NOT the cause of the Bush Crash or the deficit?
Is that kind of partisan brinkmanship and blackmail on the American people by the Tbag Congress Constitutional?
This post was edited by heri_cles on Sat, Jan 12, 13 at 0:21
Strange appearance of this OP. The President should just issue script as promises to pay. The banks will immediately buy up these "promises to pay" and create investment vehicles to be snapped up by investors.
Frank: I think since we are having economic deja vu, and last time I checked (today), the 14th Amendment hasn't changed, nor have the legal precedents cited, the article is relevant.
heri: stuck in Bushland again. Get a grip, stop living in the past.
If he did not invoke the 14th Amendment that time, it makes NO sense that he would now. The Republicans don't want to look like jacka**es again, do they?
Maybe I am overestimating them though.
This is just such a farce I actually hope the President does act on his own!
The facts are beyond simple......yet so many refuse to understand them.
Congress, specifically the House, controls the purse.
Duly elected members of Congress authorized every single cent of spending that has contributed to the debt...EVERY CENT.
By the Constitution the Government has the OBLIGATION to pay it's legitimate debts.
The Debt Limit is NOT about new spending it is about paying the bills that Congress has entered into knowingly and already agreed to pay.
It is absurd, irresponsible and just plain vindictiveness that is causing this issue.
Congress should raise the limit, pay your bills and then go about negotiating a Grand Bargain to address your National Debt... a debt YOU created!
In other words GROW UP!!!
The fact that we are here today to debate raising AmericaÃ¯Â¿Â½s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government canÃ¯Â¿Â½t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our GovernmentÃ¯Â¿Â½s reckless fiscal policies. Ã¯Â¿Â½ Increasing AmericaÃ¯Â¿Â½s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that Ã¯Â¿Â½the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Obama wants to be just like George Bush, and he's achieving it in half the time!
If this weren't such a travesty, I'd be ROTF with that astute obvservation, Brush!
The federal budget was just about in balance last month.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006
Astute observation? Well, maybe ... but when I do the math, I get 2006 - 2001 = 5 and 2013 - 2009 = 4. So 5/4.
Oh but years are made of months, so maybe that is what you meant. Well then I get March 16 2006 - January 20 2001 = ~62 months (I will give you the five days) and January 12, 2013 - January 20 2009 = ~48 months (if you will be so kind as to give me the 8 days).
So thats 62/48 which reduces to 31/24, but that being a bit of a mouthful, maybe we can go ahead and take a bit from George and give a bit to Barack and reduce from 30/25 down to 6/5. But then we're getting back to being very close to the more imprecise number generated by using year numbers there so ...
Okay, I give up, I am simply not privy to the sort of partisan mathematics that generate 2/1 -- or 1/2 if you do Obama first, but I wanted to stay consistent.
In any case, I am not a math whiz, but I do think learning is fun, so I'm all ears here as to what sort of math (republican? liberatarian?) y'all were using.
I wish the folks who fuss the fret over the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren also cared about the environment we are leaving our children/grands.
Drill baby drill...
Of course, OM-- when faced with the loss of an argument, change the tenets of the argument.
I'm not laughing either. :-)
Thank you for your observation chase. The last two years of the Bush presidency and the first two years of the Obama presidency when everything went into the toilet...guess who was controlling the purse strings!! By golly, she got it.
Posted by mrskjun 9 (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 12, 13 at 12:37
THAT is why I check this forum!~
If it makes you feel better to believe the debt problems of the US are as a result of 4 years, out of the last 12 years, of a Democratic controlled House ...then God bless you.
And if it makes YOU feel better that raising the debt ceiling makes us that much more secure as a country, then God HELP you.
Bill the debt ceiling has squat to do with security. It has everything to do with the integrity and word of the American government internationally.
It is a game and a game only, except when the American credit rating drops again and your and MY investments tank.
Funny I recall last time Congress pulled this carp you were furious...what changed?
Chase-- the hell it does. it has EVERYTHING to do with our security. The further we go into debt, the less value the dollar holds, and the less stable it is. Sooner or later, if we're not to that point already, we WILL be to the point that all income will be going toward paying the interest on the debt, and that's the beginning of the end.
And to answer your question, nothing's changed. If it had, I wouldn't be posting this.
Bill, everyone would agree that the National debt is a serious issue on all fronts...bu that is NOT what this current debacle is about. The next debacle, the sequester mess, is really about the debt...the debt ceiling limit is simply about having the money to pay your bills.
Anyhow the lack of information and understanding about these issues is just as amazing to me as my inability to identify a semi automatic vs automatic vs assault weapon is to you.
We will see how happy the American people will be when there is no money to pay SS, Medicare, the armed forces, veterans healthcare etc...the bills you owe are to yourself
There will be some who don't care about those things...but they will care when their investments tank and the US credit rating drops....
However there is nothing like being "right".....what the hell happened to the US?
chase, it's endemic to conservatives. They evidently don't understand, or don't want to understand, that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debt that has already been accrued and, by not raising it, the U.S. will be in default, which will cause a world-wide meltdown.
I was talking to a very intelligent, self-proclaimed conservative just yesterday who was conflating raising the debt ceiling with spending in the future. I tried to point out that raising the debt ceiling was for spending that had already taken place but he couldn't see it. He also thought that, if the "fiscal cliff" thing is worked out, the economy will roar and corporations, that are sitting on pots of money, will start spending and raising inventory and the markets will take off. I tried to point out to him that, until people have jobs (those that were sent overseas and will probably not come back) that pay decent wages, people won't be buying that increased inventory so why would corporations make it? He just couldn't accept what I was pointing out, insisting that once there was certainty, corporations would start producing again and hiring. Well, great, but they have to have customers first.
So, either it's somehow a difference in the way the brains of conservatives work or they are purposely trying to destroy our credit rating (I believe that there are some in Congress who are trying to destroy our credit rating, but most conservatives who think the way this man was thinking are just incapable of rational thought in this regard).
Dock: "chase, it's endemic to conservatives. They evidently don't understand, or don't want to understand..."
Well, this is a productive line of thinking. Thanks for sharing. Problems solved. Not!
Elvis....and your positive contribution to the discussion would be...????
I don't think it was a contribution, but more an observation. Only liberals know how to solve our debt problem. No budget in four years, really...who needs one. Out of control spending, almost 17 trillion dollars in debt, and liberals have all the answers in fixing it. Yet it is congress who controls the purse strings unless the congress happens to be controlled by liberals. So any mess we are in only started with the end of a conservative presidency and restarted with the beginning of a conservative congress. Otherwise things would be hunky dorey. Did that clear things up?
I agree it was not a contribution. And your opinion on what should be done MRS is....... ???
I have an idea: You go first, Chase! What is your contribution to the discussion? Besides telling me that I'm not contributing to the discussion. Actually, my contribution is to point out that partisan drivel isn't getting anyone anywhere. You can chew on that, or you can scroll on by.
Yea. The day Obama took office he should have ordered all the troops out of iraq and afghanistan and stopped all that spending.
Wonder why he didn't do that?
I did go first but perhaps you missed my post.....or perhaps you just look for the things you're equipped to "comment" on.
................my earlier post on this thread.
This is just such a farce I actually hope the President does act on his own!
"...or perhaps you just look for the things you're equipped to "comment" on."
Oooh. Personal insult. Not playing, girlfriend.
Next thing you know, Elvis, you'll be told to "shut up."
All the while, passing judging on the character of others.
As Maddie says, "gotta love it."
Quite the contrary , I would be glad to hear Elvis, or yours or anyone's comments on what needs to happen ....beyond a sarcastic comment or cheap shot, that adds nothing to a conversation.
I think it is amazing that it takes a Canadian to explain it. We hit the debt ceiling because of money we already spent. Pure and simple. The time to make changes is before we hit the ceiling.
Once you've spent the money, you have to make arrangements to pay it. That is not the time to threaten that debts won't get paid. It's that behavior that damages the US security and standing in the world.
As chase says, "grow up!".
Wrong. That's the money that Congress owes to the Merican people. That's money WE PAID IN. Contrary to popular belief, those ARE NOT entitlements! Those are PAID FOR INSURANCE POLICIES.
But for the record? I'd rather starve to death, than saddle my grandkids with the debt we're putting on them. (or are we up to the GREAT grand kids now?)
Chase: "Quite the contrary , I would be glad to hear Elvis, or yours or anyone's comments on what needs to happen ....beyond a sarcastic comment or cheap shot, that adds nothing to a conversation."
All evidence to the contrary, Chase. You could have looked very righteous there...until the end of your sentence. You know how that works. The art of dysfunctional discussion. "Gotta love it." Or as long as I'm quoting MAH: "Projection--it ain't pretty."
I have no need to look righteous.... and your ideas on what needs to happen to resolve the debt ceiling debacle are????
Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Sat, Jan 12, 13 at 18:59
You're doing a great job of the latter all on your own--I wouldn't dream of trying to compete.
It's just not "me" to even want to.
I've made known my feelings on this topic before.
There is no interest in being insulted for giving my opinion again.
This post was edited by demifloyd on Sat, Jan 12, 13 at 19:25
"Wrong. That's the money that Congress owes to the Merican people. That's money WE PAID IN. Contrary to popular belief, those ARE NOT entitlements! Those are PAID FOR INSURANCE POLICIES.
But for the record? I'd rather starve to death, than saddle my grandkids with the debt we're putting on them. (or are we up to the GREAT grand kids now?)"
Bill, It's common knowledge and written about by many that people who have been retired, especially for awhile,, receive way more in benefits than they ever paid in.
Leave SS, VA, military alone.
Cut non-essential programs: Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, foreign aid, all the various unnecessary funding going toward ridiculous studies which serve no reasonable and worthwhile purpose (we've all heard about these), and some serious consideration of the true self-perpetuating entitlement programs. That's a start. Cut the waste. Now, I realize people have disparate ideas of what is a waste and what isn't.
That's my answer today at 6:35 p.m. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time for any reason; how's that?
jmc-- Agreed. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of interest? Now, we can agree that even in spite of whatever interest might've acrued, there are people who STILL use way more than they ever put in. I'll take it a step further, and suggest that there are many who NEVER put into the funds, and STILL are allowed to take out. But we won't get into that discussion. That's a whole other thread..... or 5. Suffice to say, I'd be just as happy to see SS shut off to those who've never contributed, as well as a shut off for those who reach their contribution level.
Contrary to popular belief, those ARE NOT entitlements! Those are PAID FOR INSURANCE POLICIES.
They ARE entitlements. An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. It's money that we are entitled to. That's why they are called entitlements and not something else.
I've brought that up before too, Bill. Like any other retirement fund. You don't come onto a job at 55, retire in 10 years at 65, amd receive full retirement. You have to um, er, EARN it at some point in your life.
I see otherwise as "entitlement".
Wisegeek.com has a definition I am comfortable with.
Here is a link that might be useful: Is SS en
Whew, we cannot even agree on the meaning of National Debt; much more important to score ideological points and elevated levels of snark. I'll pass.
Elvis, I respect that may be your answer to solving the National Debt problem but what do you think should be done with regards to the debt ceiling, which is an entirely different issue and the point of your own OP?
I think that the opposition to raising the debt ceiling is all about trying to force commitments to cut spending in a way acceptable to the opposition. Failure to raise the debt ceiling is scary, but so is the out of control spending. Something's got to give; pay now or pay later. I suppose we can say "pay later, I may not be around tomorrow" or "screw the ones who come after (us)". In the end, for maybe most people "it's all about me".
You want to play the dictionary game? Well this article uses three dictionaries to explain entitlements.
An entitlement is a benefit provided to a person or entity that is guaranteed by legislation.
From the Free Dictionary's Legal Dictionary: "An individual's right to receive a value or benefit provided by law."
From the Merriam Webster online Dictionary: " a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract" and " a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program"
From wikipedia: "An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation."
In other words, since it's a "right" you are "entitled" to it.
Here is a link that might be useful: source
It SHOULD be since I PAID INTO it I'm entitled to it. Then what do you call welfare, AFDC, Section 8 housing, and the like?
Bill, expand your horizons and read the three definitions of entitlements again. Nothing in there about paying into the entitlement legislation. Legislation sets the parameters of who qualifies and how to qualify.
"Nothing in there about paying into the entitlement legislation."
No, not in the cited definitions. Which is why I personallly am more comfortable with the expanded explanation I cited.
So, if we want to talk about government programs which provide freebies to needy persons we should probably refer to these as "social welfare programs" instead of "entitlements."
As to the SS recipients who are receiving the benefits without having earned them, we could call that mismanagement of our (SS earners) funds.
I want to say something, but I don't know where to start...I'll just thank Chase.
Marshall-- so then there's no difference between social security and welfare?
The Deficit we have was created by the Bush Crash and Recession, NOT by government Stimulus to save the economy.
The National debt was accumulated over many years.
We need to develop a bipartisan short term and a long term financial strategy.
In the meantime we have to be careful not to dive bomb the economy again. We are on a slow but steady climb out of the hole so let's not make drastic cuts and changes to try and solve these financial problems overnight.
For example, we should take the focus off of austerity and cuts to entitlements as a way out of Recession. It hasn't worked in Europe and it won't work here. Instead, we have to focus on growing the economy and creating new jobs that will not be outsourced or eliminated by technological changes.
Here is a link that might be useful: Debt and Deficit Delusions
Bill, social security, Medicare/Medicaid and unemployment benefits are taxes paid into the system by employers and employees so are partially funded by taxpayers. SSI and Section 8 housing are drawn off the same accounts, so to speak. Please define for me "welfare" as distinct from the points I included.
We can see how serious the House is taking the pressing issue of the debt ceiling as well as the impending drastic budget cuts. Off all last week and only scheduled to meet for 6 days, including the inauguration, the rest of this month.
Then again seems when it comes down to it they only need an hour or two to pass a bill that kicks the can down the road and solves nothing. They are experts at it!
The Farm Bill....passed a very scaled down one. Did not address the issues
Tax cuts only addressed the tax issue. Avoided any debt reduction measures at all and did not include any way of paying for the cuts.
Sandy relief Bill. Gave them a pittance of what was required to avoid a huge embarrassment within the party. We'll see how long the full package takes.
Same will happen with the debt ceiling
Same will happen with meaningful Tax Reform
Same will happen with a serious attempt to address the National Debt
I'm surprised there approval rating is as high as it is...at 18% !
Make one final debt ceiling = $25 Trillion, no more of this incremental annual political krap, get it over with and make $25T the very top debt.
By then (approx 8 years from now) the economy will have recovered, unemployment will be around 5%, a nice steady number that keeps inflation at bay, interest rates stable, and tax revenue increasing without overheating or economic bubbles. If the annual deficit is still in the low 100s of billions by then, then automatic across the board taxes will go up to balance it and freeze all fed spending at that point in time. If we go to war again, enforce a war tax to pay for it on the wealthiest, that should shorten all future wars. Once the 25T debt mark is reached, start paying it down a little bit every year with extra revenues. Just the appearance of US paying it down will work wonders for the economy and the snowball that Reagan started rolling with $1T in 1982 will start to melt.
So no more annual dickin' around with debt ceiling numbers, this yearly load of dirty laundry only muddies the waters and screws up the optics. All that is needed is a "Real Plan" like this one that the US and the World can sink their teeth into, no more doomsday guessing.
Problem solved, you are welcome Prez Obama!
(PS, I have a very nice signature :)
I'd be just as happy to see SS shut off to those who've never contributed, as well as a shut off for those who reach their contribution level.
How would we handle stay at home to raise the children parents be it the male or female?
Should we designate the remainder of the funds to a family member when a person retires and drop dead the next day after retirement?
Marquest, institute another program. That's not what these monies were collected for. As for spouses of those who've paid in, that's different. But it should still stop at the limit of their contribution. And if you ask why not just go with this instead of instituting another program-- what's the difference-- the answer woould be then THIS program wouldn't be in trouble, if it were being run as it were meant to be. Anything else should be run through the welfare system as a whole new capital expenditure line item.
The spouse came to mind because of the pay in only idea would have been my mother......She never worked outside the home her entire life.
She raised her family and had the meal on the table for my dad when he came home. I just wondered your thought process would work for her.
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit and it s not in any need to rush to defund, privatize, hurt the people that have invested in the fund for political gain.
My biggest fear is the government will use the SS fear talk and cut people out use promises of fixing the system and continue to take the same dollars for Social Security but not give a return.
It is like the fear WMD and "Oh Well no WMD" but we needed to do it so we implanted the fear.
A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals that the Social Security trust fund is actually in better shape than previously thought. CBO now projects the trust fund won't run out until 2038, a slight improvement over previous estimates and a reassuring reminder of the fund's solvency for the next several decades. In the ongoing battle over deficit reduction, Republicans have insisted on deep cuts to Social Security, even though the program doesn't contribute to the deficit.
Here is a link that might be useful: Social Security
marquest: "She raised her family and had the meal on the table for my dad when he came home. I just wondered your thought process would work for her."
Bill: "As for spouses of those who've paid in, that's different. But it should still stop at the limit of their contribution."
That answers your question.
I'm with marquest on this one: the SS system is not in crisis and not only doesn't contribute to the current deficit problem but was "raided" to reduce the rate of the growth in deficits but moving large chunks of SS taxes into the general fund. Stealing from our elderly and infirm to wage war.
you asked the question, so I answered it.
Bill my response was not addressed to to you specifically about SS it was general in reference to the rush to repair SS during the the deficit debate.
Marshall exactly. The reason SS is brought into the deficit debate is they hunger for that large chunk of change and not only want to steal it from the elderly but the true crime is they want to steal it from our children.
They keep saying leaving the deficit to our children is bad when in fact they want to steal from our children for their gain. That slight of hand trick again. Look over here at the debt for your children while we steal this from your children.
you continue to be a SOB for me in case you have not noticed. Others may choose to try to explain to you that your cut and paste adds nothing it is not my choice.
Continue on with your cut and paste. I will continue to SOB.
"scroll on by"
Marquest, institute another program.
Isn't that a bit of a simplistic answer, since we have a congress that refuses to pay for programs that exist already?
JG-- it may be. But the answer ISN'T to let it take down ANOTHER program.
Especially one that if allowed to operate the way it was designed to, would work just fine. SS is not a contingency (slush) fund.
When did the "dipping into" SS start anyway, was that LBJ?
I thought it was Ronnie R.
No matter when it started, it shouldn't have, and it MOST certainly shouldn't have been continued.
It was definitely Reagan who started it. He unlocked the lockbox.
This post was edited by jerzeegirl on Sun, Jan 13, 13 at 19:20
Like I said-- no matter WHO started it...
And who wants to privatize the rest?
If it'll work better than what we have now? ME!
Show me what will, and HOW it will.
Frankly, I think that Social Security has worked fairly well so far (except for politicians messing with the money, of course). There are some ideas out there about improving it such as removing the income cap, increasing the age, etc. that "might" make it more secure as we move forward with a large group of people becoming eligible for withdrawals while fewer people are paying in. I'm not saying those are the right solutions; I haven't studied it. But we do need some sensible people crafting well thought out solutions, not knee jerk reactions. Perhaps just ensuring that politicians can't touch the money would be sufficient.
Privatizing it is not the answer to making it more secure. We don't need "profit driven" companies messing with this money. Those companies have proven again and again how their drive to make a buck for themselves trumps any sense of decency in handling taxpayer money.
But we do need some sensible people crafting well thought out solutions, not knee jerk reactions.
I agree 100%.
And not just about social security. :-)
So what should social security invest their excess revenues in, if not treasury bills?
As for cutting everything in the discretionary spending, that includes customs and customs inspection, immigration, border patrol, homeland security, food inspection, the entire US highway system, air control, national parks, national forests, BLM, environmental programs that keep the water and air clean, the FBI, ATF, national institutes of health, CDC, Smithsonian, on and on and on.
I'm willing to bet the ranch the "boys" in Washington won't touch SS.......its the only thing conservatives and liberals seem to agree on.....cause they all benefit from it.......gotta cut the other guys stuff first.
David, maybe the US should let Canadians handle your SS funds for you.....
CPP is our version of SS
Here is a link that might be useful: CPP sees record investment growth
We seem to enjoy investing our money in wars and tax breaks for Corporations.
Big difference between investing and spending.
Bill are you saying you consider the money spent on wars to be an investment?
dockside"""""""They evidently don't understand, or don't want to understand, that raising the debt ceiling is to pay for debt that has already been accrued and, by not raising it, the U.S. will be in default, which will cause a world-wide meltdown. "
Yes, it is to pay for debt already accrued.......a debt which just happens to be higher during obama's presidency than any other. Also just happens that the increase in the debt was not due wholly to "paying for debt that had already been accrued". Could it possibly be that all the controversy between parties, regarding fund distribution by obama, could have anything to do with a lack of faith by the conservatives in his spending habits and his inability to administer finances??? Makes sense to me.
chase""""""""beyond a sarcastic comment or cheap shot, that adds nothing to a conversation"
Yep, always seem to be a lot of those when a conservative dares to make a comment not agreed on by the libruls or God forbid anything negative toward obama.......often becoming quite personal and nasty at times
No one has yet mentioned the 'game' going on, where the Republicans want to force Obama to detail the cuts he proposes.
At which point they can campaign against him, pointing out the cuts to the old and poor people, and weakening defense, blah blah blah. See his cuts to medicare advantage and the Romney campaign.
Of course, the Democrats would never, ever, do anything like that.
Chase, read Marquest's comment and then mine again, and see if your question makes sense.
Bill I guess I am not the brightest light on the tree or the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't understand your response vis a vis Marquest's observation....sorry.
Marquest said we seem to enjoy "investing" our money in wars. I contradicted saying there's a difference between investing and spending.
Got it!!!! I'll put it down to my head cold.....
Congress seems to be a wholly owned subsidy of the military-industrial complex; therefore, money from Congress is an investment in the profit-making abilities of these allied industries.
Elvis ... Leave SS, VA, military alone. Cut non-essential programs...the true self-perpetuating entitlement programs.
Bill I'd be just as happy to see SS shut off to those who've never contributed, as well as a shut off for those who reach their contribution level. Anything else should be run through the welfare system as a whole new capital expenditure line item...welfare, AFDC, Section 8 housing, and the like...
No doubt, the vast majority of those who stand to benefit from SS and Medicare do not want cuts to benefits for themselves or for their aging parents. Among them are a
subset of people who favor cutting programs aimed at the weak, the elderly, students, and minorities. In other words, just make sure I get MINE. And to boot, they would lay down on the train tracks to protect the wealthiest Americans from an incremental tax increase than providing help to those who need it.
The stubborn ideological support for that position is the same as it ever was. To he11 with the poor, the elderly, those without retirement income, the long term unemployed..they deserve their misery and worse. Yup, their lack of personal responsibility, poor upbringing, laziness, and reliance on government put them where they are so give me mine and to he11 with them.
This has gotten so old.
Oh yea, what what could Jesus possibly have been thinking when he split the 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed the hungry? DOH..
Back to the point of the OP.
YES, President Obama should protect our economy and the World economy from rapacious Republican tbaggers seeking to blackmail the American people. That is one reason why we elected him, to protect us from these ideologically extreme GOP/T fools.
Posted by heri_cles 10 (My Page) on Mon, Jan 14, 13 at 21:33
"Elvis ... Leave SS, VA, military alone. Cut non-essential programs...the true self-perpetuating entitlement programs."
Gee, look what happens when one takes someone else's post and "photoshops" it:
heri: "To he11 with the poor, the elderly, those without retirement income, the long term unemployed..they deserve their misery and worse. Yup, their lack of personal responsibility, poor upbringing, laziness, and reliance on government put them where they are so give me mine and to he11 with them...YES, President Obama...seeking to blackmail the American people."
Just doesn't seem right, does it?
The dept ceiling has almost nothing to do with the President. It is Congress that passes the bills. Congress, Congress, Congress. The exception might be wars...(wars are declared by Congress) but not really in modern day 'conflicts'- but even that is subject to the purse strings of Congress.
The President, as executive, just signs the checks to cover the money that Congress has spent. And this Prez is winding down the wars and wants a non-hawk Republican as Sec. of Defense. (Hagel) And Colin Powell just backed Hagel as well.
alexr, truthfully I don't think many Americans understand what the debt ceiling is. Rush L has compared it to raising a credit card limit. Nothing could be father from the truth yet so many believe that. The debt ceiling is not about new or additional spending.
As I said above ....raising the debt limit IN NO WAY authorizes NEW spending. It simply allows the treasury to pay bills that have ALREADY been incurred, bills that were authorized by Congress, bills they now feel they can choose not to pay and virtually default on legitimate obligations. Bills like SS, Veterans benefits, military salaries, monies lent to the US from others in good faith that the debt would be repaid as agreed.
I can just imagine the comments about personal responsibility if anyone here simply decided they weren't going to pay their EXISTING bills unless their boss gave into some concession of theirs.
I think the President really has his head in the right place here.
Yesterday he said that this could be resolved one of two ways..... Congress could do it's job and raise the debt ceiling OR they could authorize him to do it on their behalf.
What is absolutely unacceptable is to hold the entire system hostage to a few sore losers.
I know that my idea is really strange. But what would happen if we didn't raise the debt ceiling? That we paid the interest on the debt we already have, that we pay SS, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and other programs that are a safety net? And then we start cutting spending after that? Now that's what we rotten conservatives would like to see happen. So what is your objection to that?
OK so you won't pay any government salaries including the military, you won't pay for airport security, food inspection, border guards, you won't honour any defense contracts, you won't pay for Sandy relief, you won't pay education, you will close down homeland security, close all American Embassies, shut down the FBI and CIA....
OK so you are willing to do all that. Now where are you going to get the money to pay for the things you think ought to be paid?
chase what was that comment you made earlier? "or perhaps you just look for the things you're equipped to "comment" on."
That is probably the most ludicrous post I've seen on this thread. Are you actually saying that if we don't raise the debt ceiling that all those things are going to happen?
"OK so you are willing to do all that. Now where are you going to get the money to pay for the things you think ought to be paid? "
Do you think people are going to stop paying their taxes tomorrow?
If you don't raise the debt ceiling then you can't borrow to pay your debts - we apparently are still in the position of having to borrow money to pay some of our legally contracted bills. So there would be bills (salaries are a kind of bill too) that would not be paid.
Do you see it differently, mrskun?
YES Mrs that is exactly what would happen!
There is NOT ENOUGH tax revenue to cover the costs of all you describe plus what I listed. If there was there would be no need to raise the debt ceiling! Facts are you put out WAY more money than you bring in intaxes...and have for many, many years.
You MUST borrow money to pay all your bills your Congress has incurred over the years and that includes government salaries.
In the interest of showing that I want to have a reasonable discussion...
The government would have to find some way of keeping some skeletal level of government running for the most critical of services especially related to security BUT make no mistake when the Republicans say they are willing to SHUT DOWN the government to get their way now, instead of within a full and balance approach to the debt, they mean exactly that ...shut down the government.
If Obama isn't willing to negotiate some spending cuts and start getting a handle on our runaway debt then allow sequestration to take place. He's had four years. What happened to Simpson Bowles, his own commission who came up with ways to cut spending and start bringing down the deficit. He decided to ignore them. He wanted a tax hike on the wealthy, he got it. It will run the government for a few days. Four years without a budget, wow, what a way to run a country. Worked for Greece right? One war was ended, where is that money? Another is coming to an end, where will that money be going?
Mrs that's OK....the debt discussion should take place within the negotiations on the sequester NOT the debt ceiling. They are two very different things.
So then are you saying raise the debt ceiling so the government keeps running and negotiate spending cuts within the context of the sequester? If so I agree and so , by the way, does the President.
This lady gets it:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) became the first Republican senator to come out against using the debt ceiling as leverage for spending cuts, contradicting Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans who favor such a tactic.
In an interview with the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner published Tuesday, Murkowski said, "If you incur an obligation, you have a responsibility to pay for that." According to the paper, "Murkowski said spending cuts are crucial but shouldn't be tied to the debt ceiling debate."
I don't think many Americans understand what the debt ceiling is.
I think many USians don't care to understand what the debt ceiling is; newly converted fiscal hawks (as of November 2008) and the Obama-can't-do-anything-correctly crowd are in constant search of any excuse to make attacks -- usually and predictably not germane to the subject being discussed. Four years of constant hand flapping and we can look forward to another four years of the same.
There are policies of the Obama Administration that deserve criticism but I've yet to see the hand flappers seriously address them much less in a coherent manner.
Newt did this during the Clinton Administration, This will turn into a "Dirty Harry Make my day". If they want to see the Democratic Party take over the Congress this might do it. It happened before.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) warned House Republicans not to hold the debt ceiling for political leverage Friday, contradicting Republicans who have strongly hinted at their plans to do just that.
"They've got to find, in the House, a totally new strategy," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Everybody's now talking about, Oh, here comes the debt ceiling. I think that's, frankly, a dead loser. Because in the end, you know it's gonna happen. The whole national financial system is going to come in to Washington and on television, and say: Oh my God, this will be a gigantic heart attack, the entire economy of the world will collapse. You guys will be held responsible. And they'll cave."
"He can't keep thinking the way he's thought the last few months without having a disaster on his hands," said Gingrich of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Gingrich's comments underscore the division among Republicans over whether to use the necessary debt ceiling increase to extract spending cuts not included in the deal resolving the so-called "fiscal cliff." Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) said Wednesday that Republicans should be willing to risk a government shutdown in exchange for a routine increase needed to pay the country's existing bills.
No chase, if you listened to Obama's press conference yesterday, spending cuts will never be part of his negotiations, he as much as said so. The runaway spending has to stop. He needs to read his own words when he voted against raising the debt ceiling.
Mrs that is not so he very clearly stated he would be a willig partner in any discussions about spending cuts......but not as part of that debt ceiling discussions.
I am not truing to be insulting but you do know that the debt ceiling and sequestration are two totally different things.
Believe it or not chase..I do know that. But the debt ceiling must be used as a tool for meaningful spending cut negotiations. Did you know that?
Any "tool" possible should be used to attack spending.
Spending is burying us.
All of us.
debt ceiling must be used as a tool for meaningful spending cut negotiation
Msk that is not true. You seem to still not understand that sequestration is the other and best time to discuss the budget.
Try reading the transcript and decide for yourself and not what you are hearing through snips of what others want you to believe.
You probably do not realize that the President last year signed into law $1.4 trillion in spending cuts and that the debt has been shrinking.
This is why the Republicans will lose if they shut the government down.
Here is a link that might be useful: Full Transcript of what was said
the debt ceiling must be used as a tool for meaningful spending cut negotiations.
That makes exactly the same amount of sense as 'the Sandy relief bill must be used as a tool to shore up Nascar'.
The irony is that people who really believe this economically illiterate nonsense will be the first to start shrieking when we default, our economy plummets, the world plunges into recession and the value of their retirement assets is halved.
So we're witnessing economic illiterates who believe that shutting the government down for an undetermined length of time - weeks? months? which means no social security checks, no income taxes collected, no food inspection, customs? Immigration? shut down the national parks, forest service, BLM so no more oil and gas leasing, stop work on US highways, stop the CDC from following the flu epidemic, and all that, they figure that this is a good thing to force Obama to cut spending. While the fools *seem* to have forgotten is that congress controls spending, not the President. IOW, forcing him to do their job.
And if shutting down the gvt isn't bad enough, they want to not extend the debt ceiling, force the Administration - who is charged with administering the spending that congress authorized - to immediately cut 40% (the amount we borrow) from gvt spending - which means contractors waiting for their money, SS pensioners waiting for their money, and will, overnight, cause an immediate, violent economic contraction not only here, but world wide, a huge drop in the credit rating that will instantly trigger much higher interest rates for everybody, and God only knows what else.
Go for it, idiots.
you voting with Obama david? Oh wait, that was that Obama, not this Obama...hard to keep up with his patriotism.
Mrsk, that odd little non-sequitur does nothing to mitigate the lunacy you advocated in the line quoted.
Oh, you must be referring to Obama's vote against increasing the debt ceiling when he was a senator. I'm fully aware of the politics here, but, see, here's the difference.
When Obama voted against increasing the debt limit, the Democrats didn't control the senate. Which means they got to play politics and it didn't matter.
This time, the Republicans control the house. And so what they do can't be just passed over in a vote.
See the difference?
President Obama has clearly said that he is willing to cut spending much further, but not under the threat of wingnut teabagger blackmail by destroying the economy.
" the debt ceiling must be used as a tool for meaningful spending cut negotiations. Did you know that?"
No I don't know that because I don't believe it to be true.
The debt ceiling is nothing more than instrument that allows the Treasury to access the funds it needs to meet the EXISTING government obligations. Nothing more.
Sequestration on the other hand deals with FUTURE Spending and deficit cuts. Sequestration was put in place by this Congress in 2011 to force them to deal with the National Debt and Government spending. Put in place by THEM and it kicks in at the end of February.
It is under the terms of sequestration that spending cuts etc should be negotiated becasue if they are not dealt with cuts of 8-10% will be made across the board to every budget except SS.
Sequestration is about government spending going forward and the debt ceiling is about paying existing bills two very different things.
There is no place in a debt ceiling discussion for talk of closing the government down.
Mrs, I went out of my way to say I wasn't trying to be rude to you. I just wondered if you have maybe got the two confused. Not sure why you felt it necessary to add snark to your reply.
Anyhow if it wasn't what it was going to do to the economy I'd say let the bozos have their way. In my opinion if they allow the US to default on it's legitimate obligations and force the government to shut down...it will be a very long time before they see the Presidency or a House majority again...and that good be the one good thing that comes out of this totally unnecessary debacle.
Ms. Elvis stated:
Gee, look what happens when one takes someone else's post and "photoshops" it:
Your post was clipped verbatim. Are you denying the accuracy or complaining that it was taken out of context and therefore,is not what you meant?
Perhaps you should return to more personalized postings...like posting pictures of your giant poodle or acting as Bill's poodle. That style seems to suit you better than involving yourself in conversations that you admittedly cannot understand or in telling lies and misquoting people out of shear frustration.
This post was edited by heri_cles on Tue, Jan 15, 13 at 13:42
A Tool!? Yeah!
The Repubs want to use a sledge hammer
The Demos want to use a screwdriver
Maybe they'll compromise and use pliers
So we're witnessing economic illiterates who believe that shutting the government down for an undetermined length of time - weeks? months? which means no social security checks, no income taxes collected, no food inspection, customs? Immigration? shut down the national parks, forest service, BLM so no more oil and gas leasing, stop work on US highways, stop the CDC from following the flu epidemic, and all that, they figure that this is a good thing to force Obama to cut spending
Yeah, that worked out so well for Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's.
This post was edited by dockside on Tue, Jan 15, 13 at 20:46