The GOP House caucus leaders gave a brief press conference a few minutes ago as I write this, showing a very unified front on the debt ceiling talks. Their message was two-fold: No tax increases, and the president needs to step up and lead already. They noted that the president doesn’t seem to have a plan, which isn’t exactly news, and that it’s time to act — also, not exactly news.
They delivered the press remarks to get out ahead of the president’s own speech, planned for later in the morning. He is likely to pin the blame for the impasse on the Republicans. But it’s worth remembering just how we got to this point in the first place. Take it away, WSJ:
On spending, it is important to recall how extraordinary the blowout of the last three years has been. We’ve seen nothing like it since World War II. Nothing close. The nearby chart tracks federal outlays as a share of GDP since 1960. The early peaks coincide with the rise of the Great Society, the recession of 1974-75, and then a high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 and the Reagan defense buildup.
From there, spending declines, most rapidly during the 1990s as defense outlays fell to 3% of GDP in 2000 from its Reagan peak of 6.2% in 1986. The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008.
Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi’s Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. (Even in 1946, with millions still in the military, spending was only 24.8% of GDP. In 1947 it fell to 14.8%.) Though the recession ended in June 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year it is heading back toward 25%.
This is the main reason that federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP has climbed from 40.3% in 2008, to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to keep rising in the future. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think U.S. debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP.
Congress controls the purse strings, and the spending run-up occurred when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. I’m sure everyone here in the Tatler audience knows that, but it’s worth a reminder and mentioning to friends and such who don’t hang on every headline. The Democrats love to pin the blame for the nation’s debt crisis on George W. Bush, but they took his excessive spending and turned it up to 11. As I used to say when confronted about this question as a GOP comms director, the answer to too much spending is not to pile on more spending — unless you’re one of today’s Democrats.
Now, as to what the Republicans are doing and should do. The unified front on display today was good for the caucus and was a probably a good first move to set the stage for the president’s remarks. They called on him to lead — will he?
Writing in the Atlantic, Megan McArdle says the GOP should call the president’s bluff. Her premise is that he won’t let a default happen because it will cost him his job. I’m not so sure about that. We’ve heard the Democrats, over the last few months, mention the 1995 government shutdown showdown between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. They credit that shutdown (wrongly, in my opinion) with resuscitating Bill Clinton’s presidency. President Obama’s poll numbers are in the mud now; he needs a revival that even the killing of Osama bin Laden didn’t deliver. He may well see this crisis as his opportunity for that. I suspect he does. I also suspect that he’s enjoying the chaos a bit. This is the kind of thing a community organizer thrives on. He’s just trying to figure out how to master it and make it useful to him.
In the midst of all this, the Reid-McConnell plan is emerging as a possible compromise. I considered that idea a dead letter a few days back, but it’s still out there and, oddly enough, getting a bit better as a deal as time goes on. So it’s not dead yet, and may come around. Or not — Sen. Jim DeMint is dead set against it.
It’s likely to be a long day. The Pelosi Democrats are delivering their remarks on the situation as I write. They’re still all about the grand bargain, and Pelosi is touting a bipartisan approach. But she used a lot of code talk about “our values,” by which she means the political left’s point of view, from a group that failed to pass a budget when they had the chance, and whose own spending got us to where we are. Those values are part of the problem.
The president is up shortly after the Democrats are done.
Update: President Obama followed the Democrats, but I missed the first part of his remarks. He seems to have offered his usual “sacred cow” routine, by which he puts GOP sacred cows up for slaughter while feinting that he’s doing the same with his own. He declined to answer directly on the plan the GOP proffered earlier, which was a $2.5 trillion or so package that included a Balanced Budget Amendment. He didn’t take that on directly immediately, then went into a riff on “oil company subsidies” (which are in reality corporate tax breaks not unique to the oil industry) before suggesting that the GOP plan isn’t serious. Note, that he hasn’t actually read their plan. He also did say that we don’t need an amendment to the Constitution to get spending under control. His own presidency, and in fact every presidency before his save the years when the GOP controlled Clinton’s purse strings, suggests otherwise.
Jake Tapper just went for O’s jugular, asking if he has any regrets about his role. Tapper, I like the cut of your jib. The president denied that things have gotten “ugly.” And then he lunged into the press corps and threw Tapper to the ground.
Kidding, obviously. He actually zeroed in on cutting defense, which is always his cut of first choice, before feigning a willingness to cut domestic spending. He tends to take those cuts back as the meeting wear on; that’s what Cantor was asking about in that meeting in which the president told him “Don’t call my bluff.”
Update: As I write this, Obama is on a tear about all the over-spending that preceded his presidency: “We cut taxes on the wealthy and didn’t pay for them, we rolled out a prescription drug benefit that we didn’t pay for, we had two wars that we didn’t pay for.” Stipulate that all of that is true (leaving aside the net revenue effect of tax cuts). This president then accelerated the excessive spending well beyond what he inherited. It’s these moments that reveal his character — he is addicted to shifting blame onto anyone but himself. He then threw out “Let’s avoid Armageddon” on the debt ceiling, a line that’s likely to generate some headlines. But he is the one who is threatening to withhold Social Security checks, and he is the one who failed to lead for three years, and he is the one who is stubbornly insisting on tax hikes. Armageddon is in his hands, but he knows the media is inclined to carry his narrative no matter what.
Update: Heh, the president claimed that most of his proposals are “traditionally bipartisan.” I guess that’s why both of his signature accomplishments, the stimulus and ObamaCare, attracted no GOP support at all and have divided the country while making the budget problems worse. I guess that’s why, when his initiatives like cap and trade fail, he pushes them through via the federal bureaucracy. It’s fair to wonder at times whether Barack Obama believes his own lines.
Update: The president didn’t come with a plan. He refused to name a single entitlement he is willing to cut. His sacred cows are still sacred, but yours are up for slaughter.
Update: Here’s some detail on the GOP plan, which is $2.4 trillion over 18 months and comes up for a vote next week. I would link to the president’s plan so you could compare them side by side, but…he doesn’t have one.
More: The sacred cows on the Dem side are also cash cows for Dem lobbyists.
i would wager that obama is going to pounce on the “rino” lifeline, aka reid/mcconnell plan, and spin this into a “victory” for the white house
what tyrant in his right mind would turn down a “free” $2.5 trillion?
And how would he go about doing that? A trial balloon is not a bill passed by both chambers and delivered to his desk.
“This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and to the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.”
Said by none other than the Gipper himself, Ronald Reagan. If Reagan were running for president today he wouldn’t even make it through the primary. The teabaggers would label him a communist.
Careful Prey, you’re nearly as lame as Mr. President.
Reagan invoking Modern Liberals. Ah yes, pining for the good old days when a President was presidential.
Thanks for the reminder.
If Reagan were running for president today he’d be every bit as ticked off about $14-trillion-dollar deficits as the Tea Party people are.
And if you use “teabagger” as a political label, you’re a nadsucker.
Fellow Patriots:
This is in follow-up to this week’s message about “Social Security Payment Guarantee Act of 2011”. Gingrich’s suggested that the House Rs propose and pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling by $150 billion (although the exact number might be marginally different) and, at the same time, reduces federal spending by an identical amount. Insignificant amount, but sufficient to fully fund the government through the end of September, including payment of ALL social security obligations, all debt service obligations, all military pay (active and retired), and all the other federal programs just as they have been paid through this current crisis. This bill would contain ABSOLUTELY NO INCREASE IN TAXES OF ANY KIND.
The political strategy of such a move is that the House and the Rs would be putting this ball back in the Ds court. But, Obama has stated he will not accept any deal that doesn’t increase the ceiling to a high enough amount that the discussion will not be brought up again until after the 2012 election. I’ve spoken with Rep. Eric Cantor’s office on at least five different occasions about the debt ceiling issue over the past week. I am elated to tell you that at Wednesday’s meeting with BO, Rep. Cantor suggested this VERY IDEA. You will hear from the MSM that the President scolded Cantor on numerous occasions during this meeting. In one attack, BO angrily suggested that Cantor leave the room so the “adults could continue to carry on these talks”. The raw arrogance! Near the end of the meeting, while the “short term” solution was being further promoted by Cantor, Obama said, now famously, ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff on this!”…Whattttttt? Never mind the absurdity of that statement, that’s not the point here. But clearly, BO knows nothing of poker, its nuances, and its language. Add this to the long list of other subjects that he knows nothing about…governing, leading, private markets, the economy, etc.
Eric Cantor should be recognized as real political hero and leader for his steadfastness in standing against the Administration’s agenda, particularly with respect to the debt ceiling and the fact that it is inseparable from the out of control spending in Washington. Later, I am going to ask a favor from you, one that will take very little time or effort on your part. How important is this ongoing “debate”? I’m only one American, but in my judgment, this is THE most important battle laid before us since Black Tuesday in 2008…more important, even than the Obamacare disaster that we had shoved down our throats. I don’t believe I’m exaggerating a bit when I suggest that this debt ceiling / spending fight will be eventually seen as moment in which the United States either reclaimed and reaffirmed it capitalist fiber or the moment in which the Nation committed to a future of socialist statism. This moment is analogous to the skirmish on the Lexington Green in 1775. The outcome of this crisis will be forever felt in the United States.
ON a personal level, the question must be, “What am I going to do to try to preserve our Country, our economy and our values?”. We’re each limited in the impact that we can have on all of this, but by failing to do whatever we can we merely provide tacit acknowledgement that we are helpless and that we will just have to live with whatever the politicians in Washington decide for us. Honestly, most of the members of Congress and all the members of the BO Administration i) are no smarter that most American citizens, and ii) care about little apart from their re-election efforts. So, damn it, I’m pledging not to sit idly by and watch them decide my future, but, instead, I will contribute in every possible way that I can to push for them to restore some sanity to the government and the economy.
Rep. Eric Cantor’s DC phone number is 202-225-2815. Cantor, despite the MSM’s reporting, is the man who is fighting this fight for us. It is NOT Speaker Boehner. Boehner can only hope to someday have half the courage, spine, and guts of Eric Cantor. If you’d like to verify this, you just watch how the MSM tries to maul Cantor for his steadfastness in not caving to the Spender in Chief through the duration of these talks. If it were Boehner who was carrying the water for Conservative Nation, the media would be attacking him. CANTOR IS A LEADER… CANTOR HAS COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS, AND… CANTOR NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED BY CLEAR THINKING AMERICANS LIKE YOU! Please call his office, thank him for standing strong against the WH, and encourage him that regardless of how despicably he’s treated by the MSM, We the People have his back.
Lastly, when you speak to acquaintances who may not recognize how critical this fight is, they might not understand the strategy behind passing a short term bill to get the Nation through September. It is important, then, that we explain to them what is behind the strategic aspects of this plan. Briefly:
• BO has won the media war this week with his, “I cannot guarantee that SS checks will go out on August 3 if we don’t get a debt ceiling deal”.
o Explain to them that if a deal is not reached, there is sufficient money coming in to the Treasury to pay every last SS recipient, all of the military, and to pay all the interest due on our national debt. The WH would, in this case, be the final say in what bills do and don’t get paid. So, if SS checks don’t go out, it is only BO that would make that call.
• Despite the facts above, Obama and his propaganda wing, the MSM, will continue to blame the Rs for abdicating their responsibility. Based on the facts, this would never “play” if we had an honest press…Obviously, we don’t.
• By passing a bill similar to the SSPGA of 2011 in the House, there is no way the MSM can “sell” the idea that the House Rs are responsible for SS / the military / etc. not getting paid.
o Once passed by the House, the bill would go to the Democratically controlled Senate. If they fail to pass it, there is no doubt…. “There was a debt deal proposed and it was defeated by the Ds in the Senate.” Who’s responsible now? By the way, I am not completely convinced that even with their majority in the Senate that they would not pass the bill as submitted, but we won’t know until the House acts.
o If the Senate passes the bill, it will become law as soon as BO signs it. He could, of course (and he has threatened to) veto the bill. When such a bill lands on BO’s desk, Cantor will have called Obama’s bluff??? If he vetoes the bill, it will become obvious to all but the most extreme left that the WH is more interested in putting election campaign politics above the needs of this Country and its citizens.
o Make no mistake about the fact that BO is using this crisis as nothing more than a campaign tool for 2012. If resolving the debt and spending issue is the huge crisis the WH claims it to be and the only two choices available to the Administration are to:
Accept a short term (no tax increase) patch (SSPGA of 2011) while further negotiations can be undertaken or
To veto any short term deal and raise the specter of default (by the way, even without a “fix”, the US will NOT default on its debt)
and Obama chooses to veto the measure, other than election politics, what could provoke such a dangerous action? NOTHING. Obama realizes that his positions on the debt and deficit are way out of step with the majority of Americans. His insistence on doing a deal that carries us through 2013, is driven only so he doesn’t have to try to justify his idiotic positions on this issue until AFTER he is re-elected and he has nothing else to lose politically.
DO NOT BE FOOLED! Please try to contact Cantor’s office and offer him your support, but even more importantly. PLEASE CONNECT WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY IN OTHER STATES AND SPREAD THIS MESSAGE TO THEM AS WELL. Hundreds, or even thousands, of phone calls to Rep. Cantor’s office will be valuable to him. If these calls come from all over the Country, instead of just from one state, it will further steel his resolve to continue his arduous fight on the Nation’s behalf.
Tim – just tried to call but all of his mailboxes are full! I was able to reach his office and leave a message with his staff. You are right he needs our support and he needs to hear from us from every state of our union. He is a hero.
Quick question for the GOP: Why don’t they paint the Democrats (including the President) as The Party of NO? No budget, no serious cuts to the budget, no entitlement reform, no restraint when it comes to spending and no leadership.
“Their message was two-fold: No tax increases….”
Jeez, how could anyone ever blame the GOP for this impasse. Look how they’re willing to go that extra mile.
Sir,
raising taxes in the middle of a recession will cause venture capitals to run away from the USA, thus DECREASING the tax revenue and increasing the deficit.
Sir,
where do they still produce guys like you ? I thought that the Party School in Moscow had been closed years ago.
Maybe you write from Venezuela.
Sir, you are an asshole.
Blatant ad hominem attack. Consider yourself warned.
Yes, ad hominem and completely unprovoked!
I am fascinated by your shining rhetoric, by the richness of your arguments, by your careful choice of words.
You and your insults deserve the “shining rhetoric” they received. Glad you’re fascinated.
It takes one to know one though. I will therefore presume you are an expert.
You state as matter of fact…["raising taxes in the middle of a recession will cause venture capitals to run away from the USA...."]
I love a good argument based on fact but….your premise is far from fact and fails to even define itself.
Raising tax rates and raising tax revenues by reforming tax loopholes (deductions) are quite different kinds of fruit.
Next, you state that raising taxes during a recession is directly relative to venture capitalists motivations and activities. How do you validate that comment? A ‘viable business plan’ is just that…a viable business plan! Thats what investors do…weigh viability and credit risk! Some of the greatest business innovatations rise up during tough economic conditions. Venture capitalists don’t close shop because of recessions and “tax” rates.
He offered a truism. Raising tax rates is bad for the economy, period. It takes away Capital for use by the government. Currently, that Capital is fleeing our shores or sitting on the sidelines in large corporation coffers.
However, the folks they want to tax are the small businessman who might still be making money. I doubt there are many of those left these days. Thus, I doubt the tax rate hike will raise much revenue, nor in truth, reduce it much. IOW, it will have no immediate effect, good or ill, because the activity out there is minimal. Check the stock market volatility. Almost dead. Business is simply paralyzed. Investing is nearly paralyzed. Raising the taxes will make the paralysis last longer as it makes the cost/benefit equation even less appealing, long-term. It would do no good, and would do harm.
For the same reason, a tax-rate cut will do no good, although long-term, it may do some good.
This is really an uncertainty problem. No one is investing, because they do not trust our government. Everyone is awaiting 2013. Sitting and waiting….
Marc….I really don’t pay much attention to any of the conventional forms of media when it comes to politics and the economy. I do however, follow closely a number of government data sources; historical and current. This is the only site that I monitor for public discourse in politics and its diversions into a number of other topic areas. All I can tell you is, historical data, by in large, doesn’t support much of the rhetoric on here by some.
["Raising tax rates is bad for the economy, period. It takes away Capital for use by the government."]
Of course that is true in principle. However, the fact is the constitution provides for the congress to levy taxes to support the governments operating costs. It is fair to debate those costs.
["However, the folks they want to tax are the small businessman who might still be making money."]
There seems to be significant conflict in the discourse of this point by at least Obama’s comments and those dems going public from congress. My basis comes from email correspondence from a number of democrat sources citing such conflict. So, until I know with some certainty what taxes ‘increases’ they really talking about I’ll have to defer. On the other hand, the fact is, there are few options to paying the cost of government and the ongoing increase in debt. I’m from the school that says every ‘employed’ income earner should be paying some form of taxes, crisis or not….and a graduated tax on capital gains income. Given the corruption of reporting by such fine folks i8nvolved in criminal incomes, I’m really for a consumption tax system to include the internet marketplace. The whole realm of ‘business’ and corporate taxation needs some serious overhaul excluding, accounting practices outside the ‘basic’ accounting industry standards, terminating deferrals and other shelters and signficantly reducing overall deductions from the cost of sales or ‘doing business’. I would also allow new employee allowances for two years and amortize cash/reserve capital expenditures for equipment and expansion for only five years and loans for the ‘initial’ life of the loan repayment schedule. I’m still a bit conflicted on what ‘I’ would deem appropriate for the rate. Somewhere between 20 and 25%.
["No one is investing, because they do not trust our government."]
That is not necessarily true! A lot of domestic money continues to be invested in China and other selective international markets. The little group I used to dabble with has closed 1.6M this year, right here in the good ole USA. I know of several others still investing in viable startups and expansions. On the other hand, ‘conventional channels’ from the domestic and international coroprate investors is durn sure slowed up. Heck, we’ve refitted one of our feed mills to a flour mill and specialty private label flour byproducts. Not necessary to state how much investment but, it was up there….and all from cash reserves.
["Check the stock market volatility."]
I imagine like yourself, I track volatility very closely. Long story short, I don’t find the volitility of the Dow Industrial (if thats what you’re referring to) tracking much different from other historical event points. Its most extreme parameters range from the mid to upper 7′s to a high of 14…at least from the late 90′s. It seems to be holding pretty well in the 12′s currently and generally speaking, folks have recaptured a lot of their lost ROI wherever they have it invested in the market.
I don’t have a clue how things are going to work out, but I do know there are far to many dots connected together between government and the private sector for any radical changes. The public/private partnership has been in place expanding year by year long before the term private/public partnership became public and a part of the beltway dialogue.
Democrats are trying to lock in the massive spending increases. They want today’s spending levels to be the new normal.
The appeal of Judge Napolitano to the GOP, to resist the folly of the subversive totalitarians and save the Republic:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/judge-napolitanos-open-letter-to-john-boehner-a-common-sense-guide-to-what-needs-to-be-done/
Let’s fix this overspending once and for all! All pay to congress stops as soon as spending exceeds revenue and stays that way until spending is reduced. No new tax’s!!!
Call his bluff. Raise the debt ceiling 500 billion–good for six months until the beginning of next years presidential election campaign season– with 500 billion in front loaded budget cuts, say ten percent across all departments in salary reductions, and send the bill off to the senate. Let them squirm, pass it, and send it off to the president.
Clinton triangulated with Gingrich and got some things done that were good for the country and the economy boomed. Clinton was smart enough to know how politics should be done, sort of like Disraeli was with 19th Century Parliament.
Obama has no bend to him. We all know the Senate is useless in this fight, but if the House stands firm against him, and with the debt ceiling looming, which Obama will probably ignore anyway, we will see what happens when an irresistable force meets an immoveable object. Neither will fold but the House has the pursestrings. Lets see what happens when the money music stops.
Everyone should know by now that whatever Obama promises to the Republicans will have no more veracity behind it than what Hitler said at Munich, either before, during or after. You can lock that in Fort Knox and write a check on it.
And speaking of Burke…
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jul/14/edmund-burke-vs-grover-norquist/
Obama and the Democrats have shown no inclination to cut spending in any meaningful way – except for defense spending. No surprise there. If it weren’t for the MSM carrying Obama’s water the GOP could use this as a hammer to nail Obama.
One can only wonder when they’ll break out the race card. I’m sure the DNC is coordinating the message from Obama and the rest of the Dems. Message: Stay away from the race card. Reserved for the general election next year.
Apparently one of the idiots didn’t get the memo.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/15/dem_congresswoman_blames_debt_ceiling_fight_on_obamas_race.html
I disagree with the GOP tactics: they shouldn’t simply resist and counter-attack, they should denounce this administration as a subversive administration that wants to crack the American economy by imposing taxes that will cause the venture capitals to run away.
The level of the deficit is catastrophic, we are not in a debate between those in favor and those against “welfare”, we are in a battle to save the Republic from collapse: there are no excuses for the democrats, their policies would destroy the Country AND THEY WOULD MAKE THE POOR POORER.
Congress is doing what it is supposed to and that is presenting a budget. The problem is that B HO doesn’t want to be restricted after all doesn’t being in charge mean you print all the money you want. When he talks of cuts he always goes to Medicare and Social Security and the military. Its a great tactic, all you see is the smoke but none of the fire. Let’s talk about Federal entitlement programs, nothing is said. There are a lot of entitlement programs which are funded by us for people who pay no taxes. Here is a partial list: school lunch programs, title 9, Head Start, farm subsides, community redevelopement money, subsidizing the ecologists who sue the government, Federal grants for everything under the sun, unnecessary studies, foreign aid, Federal scholarship programs, redundant Federal offices and programs.
A Federal job today is what we called workfare, or a socialized form of welfare. Cut the dead weight. Fire those who are incompetent or do little or no work.
For all the commentators on this close-minded website, if you all think that by the Republicans completely undermining this debt ceiling negotiation effort, it will damage the Obama Administration, you better look at the bigger picture. A default on our national debt would create catastrophic ripples all across America’s financial sector, Wall Street, government jobs, elderly benefits, veteran’s benefits, housing market, consumer lending market, and the list goes on and on. We could immediately become another Greece within a week after defaulting on our national debt. If this really gets you excited, then by all means, hope that this debt ceiling negotiation falters and watch this administration pay the price. I must also let you know, there is a far greater price to pay so just wait and see. Sometimes, when you cannot see outside of the box, you are blinded to all the things that can truly harm you.
You are not looking at other options. Stop all foreign aid. End all benefits for all non ctitzens, legal and illegal alike. Cancel No Child Left Behind. Reduce the budgets for the Dept. of Education, the EPA by say 10% per year for the next 20 years. Earmark all gasoline tax to pay for roads and bridges, bill airlines for the costs of the TSA. Sell Government first class airline that is based ad Andrews AFB include Air Force One in this. In the future all elected officials can fly commercial like us peasants. Give the President a travel budget and he can charter what ever until the budget is exhausted then he can stay in DC and work. You have got to think outside the box boy!
Dave: Despite what NPR says, failing to increase the debt ceiling does not automatically result in defaulting on our debt obligations. More than enough tax revenues come in all the time to pay the interest on what we have borrowed. Yes, some other expenditures might have to be reduced, but those decreasing those expenditures will not affect the full faith and credit of the United States. Do some research.
So, Dave, everyone who holds a diametrically opposed economic view to that espoused by you and your progressive posse on some other website is “closed-minded”. I can understand the urgency you feel to rejoin your compatriots in the safe cocoon of Obamanonics, where “you’ll all be drinkin’ free bubble-up, An’ eatin’ that rainbow stew” while you hum “Kumbaya”. Have a safe trip back, and watch out for anyone who feels differently from you.
Ronald Reagan said it best: “It isn’t that our liberal friends are not smart; it’s just that so many of the things they know to be true are wrong!”
Dave, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Debt-ceiling does not mean default. Do not conflate the two.
We hit the debt-ceiling long ago. Geithner has been raiding various funds to pay the bills, and those funds will have to be replaced. In effect, he has been borrowing more. When that stolen cash runs out, then they have to go to a strictly cash basis. The debt gets paid first.
Closed-minded? To you, the issue is decided. Your mind is closed on this… the very thing of which you accuse us.
Tell me something, Dave, do you really think you are smarter, more experienced, more knowledgable than me? Maybe more than me, but all of us here? Or maybe do some of us know more than you about this? Are you really that sure of your own position?
@Dave:
Raising the debt ceiling does not equal default. The Treasury collects about 60% of what it needs from income taxes, corporates taxes, fees, tariffs, etc. Interest payments are about 6% of the budget. The Treasury can easily make its debt interest payments and issue new notes to rollover existing debt. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling will mean the budget will be balanced, albeit with massive cuts in discretionary spending. A lot of bills won’t get paid right away.
Going to way of Greece? Greece keeps issuing new debt with help of the EU. Not raising the debt ceiling, forcing real reform is the opposite of Greece. Obama and Co. has only offered cuts that average out about $100 billion per year, with most of those cuts far into the future. Obama is leading us into a Greek style default, not the republicans holding the line on the debt ceiling.
“So, Mr. Obama, let me get this straight; all I have to do is guess which one of those three cards is the red queen and I win all that money?”
Here’s a fact for all of you to ponder about -
The debt ceiling was raised 19 times during the Reagan Administration and was raised 9 times during the Bush Administration without a hitch. The raising of the debt ceiling during the Bush Administration was what allowed him to pay for the needless, unjustifiable Iraq War and the Bush tax cuts.
Bush tax cuts
Dave… Federal revenues (even after adjusting for inflation) went up after the 2003 Bush tax cut. The problem is spending, not revenues.
More Dem double talk. No one “pays” for tax cuts: Congress goes on a budget. Oh, that’s right–the Dem-controlled Congress can’t write a budget so it’s unrealistic to expect these “geniuses” to do what the ordinary folks know how to do and actually quit wasting money. And by the way, why no mention of OweBama’s unjustified 3rd war? That one’s ok?
Dave…as a republican for a lot of decades, I’ve become ashamed of the party at large…meaning those common citzens who call themselves republicans. They follow all the populist rhetoric without any sense of real analysis. This rather overall fair and balanced article from the Washington Post is preceeding Dec 31, 2010. I say that its fair and balanced in that it can be further supported in CBO, OMB, Treasury and Federal Reserve analysis. Here is just a small portion:
“Based on projections by the CBO, Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley and myself, among others, even if the economy returns to full employment by 2014 and stays there for the rest of the decade, the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts, would lead to a national debt in the range of 90 percent of GDP by 2020. That’s already the highest rate since just after World War II — and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security aren’t expected to hit their steepest spending increases until after 2020.
According to these same projections, the yearly deficit would rise to 6 to 7 percent of GDP by 2020. The Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.
Compounding the problem: By increasing the government’s debt, the tax cuts have already led to higher interest payments on that debt. So even if all of the cuts expire on Dec. 31, we will still be paying for them for years to come.”
There are so many other variables of fact that folks either intentionally omit or are ignorant of in all their opinionating. I often like to ask folks to explain such things as this relative to tax rates:
$1.00 in 1950 had the same buying power as $9.29 in 2011
Our current Bush tax rates are the lowest since 1950. This is where I would invite folks to take a look at the revenue vs. %GDP charts and compare 1950 to 2011.
“Bush tax cuts would account for a significant chunk of this, considering that in each year they are in effect, the revenue lost because of them amounts to nearly 2 percent of GDP.”
Revenue lost? That money does not belong to the government. They cannot lose something they never had.
“Our current Bush tax rates are the lowest since 1950.”
This just is not so. The rate are roughly the same as they were when Bush Sr. was in office. Lower cap gains, higher corp tax rates. Reagan’s rate were far lower. Top marginal rate was 28%.
“the continuation of current fiscal policies, including the Bush tax cuts,”
The Bush tax-rate cuts increased the economy and revenues to the government. Receipts in 2008 were the highest in history. Without them, tax revenues would be worse. History demonstrates this again and again. Rates vis-a-vis revenues is a bell-curve. Charge 100% and you get nothing. Charge 0% and you get nothing. The ideal is somewhere in between.
Those government boys were using a static number without considering the dynamics of the economy. There is no formula for exactly determining how much a cut in the tax-rate affects the economy… so they do not do it at all. They assume a static economy out of necessity. That does not make it correct. They acknowledge this. They just do not offer the disclaimer every time they make a budget projection. It’s just their best guess. It is why they are so often wrong.
The key part of that original statement is the “fiscal policies”. Spending is the highest percentage of GDP in history, higher even than during WWII. This is the problem. There is no way around this harsh fact. Deal with this issue, see what the numbers look like after you have, then decide what additional steps need to take place. We cannot agree on tax rates, but we can agree that spending is too high. Let’s agree to fix that.
Except the Democrats won’t. That is what the Repubs are offering. They are not asking for tax-rate cuts. The Dems ARE asking for rate hikes. Both sides agree spending needs to be decreased. The Dems are purposely tying the rate increases to the deal, knowing this is toxic to the Repubs, so they do not have to cut their spending.
Cut 10% from the budget, and they’ll get a debt-limit increase. That means a massive firing of government employees, as 80% of cost in government are employees, except the military, which has lots of expensive hardware. Federal government employment has increased 50% since Obama took office, and the pay and perks have gone way up. Shoot, just cut Federal employment to the Bush levels, cut out everyone Obama has hired, and the deficit will decrease dramatically.
The Repubs are doing exactly the right thing here. The folks are keeping them honest. So are the freshman Congressmen. Repubs are finally growing a spine. It takes awhile to develop such character. It’ll work out.
Marc…so much subjectivity in what you write! I think we know who you’re quoting when you state ["Rates vis-a-vis revenues is a bell-curve. Charge 100% and you get nothing. Charge 0% and you get nothing. The ideal is somewhere in between."] Obviously a lot of the expert activists on this sight know where that sweet spot is but they’re not saying. Why?
The tax rate issue at best, is only a minute variable of the mayriad of variables involved. Politicians and their activists are akin to the ‘religious’ folks who forever pluck this scripture and that scripture to validate their self serving positions. Heck, many even pluck a particular ward from a scripture of the Bible to be self serving.
At any rate, it seems some of the activsts on this site have all the answers if only we could find a way to seat them all in congress and the white house circumventing the constitutional voting process.
Why does no one ever mention cutting Welfare by seriously eliminating the massive fraud? Why are our retirees who actually worked for a living the first under the bus? Why are our vets who risked their lives at the top of the list? Why is our Dept. of Defense the first one on the chopping block while other less important depts. and programs waste money with impunity?
Welfare is our most sacred cow of all. It is NEVER mentioned by either side. Non-taxpayers sucking unearned money out of workers’ pockets are THE safest group of all. No wonder we’re broke.
Solution: if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote. That would stop Dems in their tracks.
Obama, Pelosi, and the Dems want working Americans to figuratively commit suicide. How do you negotiate with people like that?
Never mentioned? In 1994-95, the Republican Congress passed welfare reform thrice. Clinton finally signed it, vowing to repeal it when the Dems had the Congress again. They did repeal it with Obama and the Dem Congress. During the Saddleback forum in ’08, Obama admitted welfare reform was hugely successful. He repealed it anyway.
Don’t blame the Repubs. Vote them back in on Nov ’12, and that will get fixed again.
“It’s fair to wonder at times whether Barack Obama believes his own lines.”
Where did that extra ‘n’ come from?
Washington has a spending problem. Tax cuts don’t increase deficits anymore than tax increases decrease deficits. Deficits are decreased by spending less. I wonder how many of the folks who quote this nonsense have ever budgeted their own money. If they find they are spending more than they take in, do they demand raise from their boss?
No President of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. This means Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republicans did.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the Congressional Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.
Well, well, well…..since the Democrats have controlled the purse strings of congress since 2006, it would appear that Obama is merely continuing the slow destruction of our economy that was started by the democrat’s. Why is it they can’t take the blame for things when they go badly as fast as they take the credit “if” things go better? Oh, and by the way, unemployment was under 7% near the end of the Bush administration, the deficit was actually only about $400 billion, and the government wasn’t in the car business!
“Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity”
-And then he lunged into the press corps and threw Tapper to the ground.
Kidding, obviously.-
Oh, I knew you were kidding. What actually happened was: -King O crooked his little finger, and the New Black Panthers lunged into the press corps and threw Tapper to the ground.-
You can’t fool me!
I don’t suppose any reports asked President Obama which spending bills that preceded his presidency Senator Obama voted against?
I wish my kids’ future was one of Obama’s sacred cows.
All I want from the GOP is ZERO cooperation. I don’t care if the President allows the Tea Party to write their own bill and pretends he is willing to support it; if Obama is willing to do something, I want them to dig their heels in. He is a treacherous viper and cannot be trusted.
I do not understand how any person can possibly trust an individual who is basically a social terrorist. Until he admits that he was not born in this country and rightfully resigns as president, everything he has done must be fault tooth and nail. Furthermore I demand as an American that anyone that facilitated this fraud from getting elected be imprison and rightfully barred from participating in politics at any level.
He is damning future generations of Americans to foreign servitude. Anyone that cannot recognize that must be treated as a fellow terrorist. If the GOP cannot see this then they are just as corrupt as those anti-American liberal fascists known as the Demo-rats.
It is time for all Americans to realize that we cannot allow this country to further slide into the socialist hellhole that Obama and company want. We need to stop the Islamo-liberal monsters from destroying this great nation and turning into a godless European style commie state.
Obama’s Utopia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flW5XNRgb4o
This video is my attempt to wake up America on the economic peril this country is facing and to ask individuals to take personal responsibility in preparing for the coming storm of civil unrest, government control over the daily lives of the dependent masses, and a message to those of us that are aware to prepare ourselves physically, economically, and spiritually as we will be the ones to lead this country back to its founding principals.
“Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.” George Washington
Haven’t people figured out that Obama’s MO in creating this crisis is that the outcome will allow him to implement his world view? Good Lord, look at everything he’s touched, every one is in flames or being ignited. Ryan was right, “he’s a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.” If our credit rating drops Obama must be forced out.
There won’t be any sacred cows receiving any more than a slight abrasion…if that!
For nearly two years the GOP and Tea Party folks have had nothing but tough rhetoric for BIG cuts to all spending and especially the ‘welfare’ programs they label as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Well, those got put on the table within a $3 trillion dollars in spending cut offer by the President and they have essentially ran from it under the guise of $1 trillion tax revenues being on the table also.
In reality, the GOP is looking for an escape route since they don’t want anything to do with increased tax revenues and a resounding majority of folks polled want increased taxes on the top wealth and spending cuts.
Essentially, nothing between now and November 2012, besides the budget cap being extended, is going to occur. Just more spending and tough empty rhetoric!
‘..GOP and Tea Party folks have had nothing but tough rhetoric..’ WHAAA?
Yeah, thanks for the the ‘informative’ WaPo piece and contributing UC Berserkley ‘financial minds’ quote.
Yep, Uhbama’s had PLENTY of Ivy League and UC types on his cabinet. Refresh my memory T.T. regarding the status of these ‘looks great on theoretical paper but I don’t know in reality’ types again? Oh that’s right. Overwhelmingly these financial know-nothings left his administration in disgrace.
Secondly, business owners, large and small DO NOT open, expand or invest capital into their respective businesses when the nation’s leader ridicules, taunts, pushes job-killing bills through with such overwhelming opposition and partisanship.
You OBVIOUSLY Sir are not nor ever were a business owner/Manager or higher-up in the private sector. You see there’s an item called ‘balances’ ‘overhead’ and ‘accountability’ as well as other necessities. Something you and the folks on the Hill fail and/or refuse to fathom or accept.
The grotesque Frank-Dodd nonsensical ‘legislation’, attempts to circumvent protocol for cap n trade, Uhbamacare and the CiC himself playing class warfare FOR YEARS, vilifying the ‘rich’ (which according to this ideologue is those making 250k a year.. what a counterproductive, lifelong government employee thinking.. dips hit) more frequently nowadays.
Yep, can’t wait to see Uhbama’s PRIVATE SECTOR ‘evil rich’ in attendance at his next $38,500 a plate ‘dinner’.
This empty suit and his all-thumbed handlers have removed so much capital from the private sector in their expanding/hiring, providing upward mobility, self-governance etc.,
The Fed/G-sector has exponentially grown on his watch, private sector shrinking (obviously) and this will OF COURSE lead to lost revenue. And i mean real ‘revenue’, not Uhbama-speak for higher taxes.
I too am disappointed by the GOP for some time. Though by your reading WaPo, quoting UC Berserkley and the like, I question your ‘Republican for decades’ hype. JMO. I’m an Independent but understand appreciate the tried and true financial system of Capitalism. Not the always-failed political system Uhbama subscribes to- Socialism.
Thanks for the ‘history lesson’ of 1950 GDP. Please, enlighten me of the Jan 2009 to Jun 2011 differences in:
-Number receiving food stamps
-Fuel prices (whereas some bus companies have seen profits gain 300-500% from last year!)
-A CiC meeting, cajoling and receiving reading material from South American dictators
-Ethanol prices
-Tobacco price, tax (albeit I don’t smoke, the skyrocketing price of these by ‘I know what’s best’ types is Fahrenheit 451-like)
-Unemployment. Go to our South champ and see how your fellow Americans who USED to work in the oil industry are doing nowadays.
What the GOP is doing is baby steps, granted. But it’s a hell of a lot more productive than what the twerp in the WH is poo-pooing about.
Honestly, Uhbama’s latest kabuki theater whereas the author touched on most points is f ucking ridiculous for a ‘leader’ to say/do. Pansy ass.
paul….All that rambling and not once do you offer any of ‘your’ more legitimate contradictive information and sources. Seems to be a trait of the Tea party folks…all populist rhetoric and no legitimate substance! If you’d taken off your political hat you’d read where I stated a number of government entities have data that supports the Washington Post article, thus, I was comfortable in posting as I did for recap purposes. Our 127 year old business is about 89% reliant upon the domestic and international commodities markets. In a couple months, I will have been on this earth 83 years and I think I still have the capacity to analyze and correlate historical and current data with some degree of relativity void of any political pursuations.
Forget spending for the moment! Go look at historical charts of revenue as percent of GDP. Maybe look at a couple years from the two more recent peak economies that you would be most familar with, such as the technology and housing economies when unemployment was realatively low and the economy skyrocketed. Maybe 1998-99 and 2005-06 would be good. In 1998 it was 39.8 and 1999 it was 39.6. In 2005 it was 34.6 and 2006 it was 36.4. For 2010 it was 29.9 and ofr 2011 its already published at 28.8. Now, go and remove all the stimulus spending for the last term of Bush and the first term of Obama thus far, so we’re talking oranges to oranges. Most politically neutral people would easily see a ‘revenue shortfall’ independent of spending and likewise, would be able to explain it very easily.
You see, politicians and their activists of both party oursuations, like to create self serving diversions (falsehoods) away from ‘simple’ facts; I supose hoping most folks won’t do their homework….and most don’t. A revenue shortfall from a historical norm…. is a shortfall! Surrounding any shortfall are generally, simple and specific causes. Some folks may easily and appropriately agree and some folks may deny, based upon certain self serving motivations.
That said, there is certainly grounds for argument surrounding government spending and I’ve long been aboard that train. However, it is my opinion that that the nation cannot risk ‘radical’ changes in spending given all the many variables of the economy and debt problems we’re facing. The reasons are simply to many and to complex to address on here. But, let me attempt to address perhaps, a couple of the most simple ones.
Of the 1,700+ government subsidies, nearly all of them support private and public sector employment in the number of millions. Making significant cuts in government spending/government size also equates to a huge amount of employment as the government is a huge consumer of goods and services from the private sector. Lets isolate those cuts to the discretionary spending side for the moment. It is this government spending that correlates to so many jobs in the private and public sectors. That leaves the non discretionary side. Lets table Social security as those funds do not go into the general fund. Lets look at Medicare and Medicaid in simple terms. Whatever may be done to alter eligibilty in Medicare ‘essentially’ transfers economic liability from one program to another, namely Medicaid. That creates a horrible ‘expansion’ of liability to both the federal government, the States and the States citizens. Most States are in dire economic trouble already. Thats the simple facts and Medicare and Medicare aren’t going away.
The nation is in a catch-22 situation and all the populist rhetoric of slashing the government and spending is shortsighted at best! Any ‘cuts’ doesn’t make the liabilities go away…it only shifts that liability to another place….probably to the States and increased States taxes.
T.T., you provided a broad brush of quotes, ‘cliff note’ information really, rather than articles, sites etc., to analyze.
As for the government subsidies you discuss, I don’t like them either. Though I must disagree with you regarding the private sector being unable to readjust, improve and succeed when no longer receiving such subsidy(ies), respectively. For I’ve seen it and work in that very environment.
I work in the science field and my company REFUSES to let go of any employees. We’ve sacrificed vacation days, time-off and even bonuses to keep our ship afloat.
Whereas my brother has been in a California Union for nearly 30 years and 90%, NINETY percent of his office has been given the pink slip.
With the minority number on the Hill, sadly, stifling the private sector in infinite areas, for multi-generations, the sooner the majority of them are removed, like a tumor, the better for our overall economy.
As for the public sector who are on the government gravy train, *uck ‘em. For their ‘work ethic’ and final product leaves a lot to be desired for.
Politicians from both aisles, since the 1940′s really, that have given in and metastasized their undeserving influence, coffers and our country becoming insolvent.
$14.3 trillion. It’s got to start NOW, T.T.
Paul…you conveniently ignore so many components to include the human and job side in your solution equation. What do you do in implementing your solution? Flip a switch and all is okay tomorrow? Even in the best of times in more modern history has there been enough job capacity for the real numbers of the adult qualified labor pool.
America and Europe simply can no longer compete in the new global marketplace without spending huge amounts of money subsidizing business and export trade. Whats your grand plan to reverse this? Lower taxes?
In the face of true realities, I would love to read more about your plans for an American heart transplant.
Secondly T.T.
The, ‘..GOP and Tea party rhetoric..’ – states that supported much of what the Tea party spoke of in ’09-’10, is why many of those states, my Virginia included, have a balanced budget. As well as unemployment lessening. Can the same be said for NV, IL, CA, MI etc.,?
A State is not the federal government! How many former States governors have become presidents? Look where the nation has arrived at in spite of those former fiscally efficient governors turned president!
Mr. Thomas,
You don’t often see bad financial situations improve by doing nothing, and they never get better by spending more. We do NOT need any “revenue enhancements. The government already gets enough of our money as it is. What we need is LARGE SPENDING CUTS NOW! We’re already uncompetitive enough with the rest of the world due to our high tax rates. Raising them simply makes a bad situation worse. If you’re 83, you should have learned this by now.
Anon….Theres something to be said your the principle of your premise. However maybe consider that the very same tax rates applied to the Bush years peaking the housing economy. Those were considered very good times…right? I would simply invite you to analyze the tax rates of individuals and business during the years America began the economic climb through its highest pinnacle of greatness. Maybe take at look at the current tax rates in comparison to 1950. If taxes are the crux of getting the economy anf jobs to our once haydays going again, then by all means lets move to set the tax rates for all businesses at ZERO and reap the rewards. Where do I sign up?
Just keep pushing this punk. His ignorance is displayed more vividly with every press conference.
I am doing an experiment. Feel free to join in.
1 – From 1978-2005 federal spending increased ~10% under Democratic Presidents; it increased ~12% under Republican Presidents.
2 – GDP increased ~13% under Democratic Presidents; under Republican Presidents GDP increased ~11%.
3 – During this same period federal debt increased ~4% under Democratic Presidents; federal debt increased a WHOPPING ~36% under Republican presidents.
Republicans Presidents
1 – SPEND MORE (a little more)
2 – STIMULATE THE ECONOMY LESS (a little less)
3 – BORROW MORE (a LOT more)
than Democratic Presidents
The Republican mantra that “deficit spending doesn’t matter” is clearly incorrect.
The Republican mantra that “tax cuts stimulate the economy” is clearly incorrect.
And borrowing money from China to provide massive tax cuts to the wealthy while starting two wars in corrupt foreign countries and leaving behind large occupying forces was a really stupid idea, which we will ALL be required to pay for.
Are Democrats the ‘tax and spend’ party? Yes, they are.
But Republicans are the ‘don’t tax and spend more’ party because – according to Republicans – “deficit spending doesn’t matter” until, of course, it does matter when the economy is in a deep recession and the president is a Democrat.
If it makes you all feel better to blame Democrats, in general, and Obama, specifically, then go ahead. But it will not – in any way – change the reality of this enormous fiscal problem caused, primarily, by Republican policies that have been in place for the past 30 years (aka “voodoo economics”)
Frankly, I suspect most of you are “just too poor to be a Republican”. But if you insist on electing Republicans that insist on giving me tax cuts, then I am going to keep pocketing the money. So thank you very much.
BTW – I am well aware of the fact that I left out spending and debt under Obama, which increased astronomically. But I also omitted spending and debt (which increased astronomically) under the second term of Bush II. I omitted only because I did not have final data.
Wow, and ‘thank you’ for these numbers with NO REFERENCE, BASIS or fact appended to your moronic posting.
FYI: Please don’t try to sell yourself as some well-off Illiberal. The ‘Tax cuts’ jab you threw out in your post.. it’s BS. So, under your mindset, the government ALLOWING people who are hard working, job providers, successful to keep a bit more of their EARNED DOLLAR is ‘unjust’.
Again, I recommend you check out those ‘wonderful’ countries who live under such fictitious utopia you wish to occur here and TRY to sell me on it.
Though you did elect a man (hahaha.. you know you did!!!) purported to be a ‘genius’ and ‘intellect’ because.. YOU WERE TOLD HE WAS!!!
BTW, I STRONGLY recommend you look at the infinite-like economic data, compare Reagan’s laffer curve actions to our economy to Uhbama’s ‘Stimulus’ and any other failed experiment he invoked, bub.
Then again, you’re an Illiberal and facts, hard data would shatter your very being so..
-Independent, Capitalist-loving, motivated to become a millionaire in my 30′s you loathe type.
It wouldn’t matter to you if he did provide a reference. You people are only inclined to find credible that which supports what you already want to believe. The fact are correct. Look them up for yourself.
Praetorian, Marc Malone did a better job than myself in commenting to Img29 regarding the flimsy ‘Repubs spend more..’ nonsensical post.
No background to Img29′s post just the watered-down, vanilla version. Hmm.. much like Uhbama’s ’80% of the country want some type of tax hies..’ jibberish he’d spoken of when misconstruing, twisting and bending a Gallup poll http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/15/obama-80-of-the-people-want-tax-hikes/ to fit his fictitious narrative.
Ya see, Praetorian/a physicist? I provided a website for my post. Pretty imple stuff and EXPECTED amongst adults.
In my post, I called for a ‘reference’ and ‘basis’. Though YOU ‘obviously’ know what I’d meant.. but you didn’t! hahahaha
Again poster Marc Malone went into greater detail.
Reagan had Tip O’Neill and overwhelming Democrats in the House.
Clinton, same situation until the GOP took the reins (though I’ll never go with the concept of Clinton having a ‘balanced budget’. ‘Reallocating’ or stealing from the SS coffers and placing them in the budget is wrong on many levels).
And as we’ve seen with Uhbama, $4 trillion on his watch ALONE, $6 trillion (!!) since the Dems took over the House 4 short years ago though most recently just the Senate.
Yeah, you’ve quite the political leg-up, Praetorian. Though I’m sure if I ‘listen carefully’ to your party’s Rep, Pelosi, even though Uhbama has been carrying on many duties WITHOUT consulting her, I’ll be a certified kool-aid drinker as well. Gimme time. Maybe a lobotomy.. http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/66500/HARRY-S-LOBOTOMY-66564.jpg
paul_unalaska. The facts and figures provided are correct. As Praetorian noted, you can easily look them up yourself.
The experiment was to determine if someone on this site (that would be you) would attack both the message (the facts and figures) as well as the messenger (that would be me) simply because reality does not fit with your ‘version of the truth’.
So thanks for playing.
Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
Every budget the Conservative Reagan offered was balanced. The Dems in the House added the deficits. Domestic spending stayed the same under Reagan. The deficit was for the military buildup to win the Cold War.
Once the USSR fell, well it sure was easy to balance the budget, except Clinton never did in his first two years. Deficits were $190B/yr, and were projected to remain so forever. The Conservative Republican Congress shoved a balanced budget down Clinton’s throat. Clinton shut down the government twice fighting it.
There has been no Conservative power since 2000. The Conservatives went home, never having intended to make it a lifetime job. The big-government Repubs and bigger-government Dems have been in charge since.
Small government Conservatives are the only ones to offer balanced budgets. Your ridiculous numbers mean nothing. The premises are false, that it is only the Presidents which matter, and they ignore a key consideration, Conservatives. “Don’t blame me; I voted for the Conservative.”
From a very conservative think tank….1983 The ‘new expanded’ gateway to corporate and business welfare of today.
“President Reagan says he wants to get chiselers off welfare, so we’ll start there. All of these programs [.......] provide welfare for businesses, large and small, at the taxpayers’ expense. Unlike the fabled welfare queen, however, these companies are not breaking the law; they’re just collecting what the government makes available.”
“This category [........] by no means lists all the subsidy programs in the budget. Others may be found under such categories as export subsidies, price supports, tariffs, research, other services to business, and the like. Even so, there are so many subsidies to business and agriculture in the budget that it would be difficult if not impossible to find them all. Many of them are hidden under pleasant-sounding names like the Economic Development Administration, and most of them are sold to the public as something entirely different. When the Carter administration proposed a small cut in federal spending on school meals, for instance, who made the loudest protest? Kellogg, Sunkist, Chiquita Brands, Archer-Daniels-Midland, and Keebler. This spring the Navy decided that Lockheed’s P-3C antisubmarine aircraft was not worth the money and canceled its planned purchase. Lockheed, along with two vociferous fiscal conservatives, John Rousselot and Barry Goldwater, Jr., appealed to President Reagan, who approved the purchase of 26 planes at a cost of $1.6 billion. That will appear in the budget as a defense expenditure, but it is a business subsidy just as surely as the Chrysler bailout.”
“Even leaving out items like these [......] we can identify some $50 billion in business subsidies in the 1983 budget. The question, of course, is why we should oppose such subsidies. Doesn’t government assistance to business help the economy? In a word, no. Such government programs only divert resources from efficient businesses to inefficient companies. Companies that produce something consumers want prosper in a free market. And the same companies that are benefiting consumers are hurt by government subsidies, which generally go to businesses that do not serve consumers well. Subsidies distort production away from consumer needs and toward the products and services favored by government. Money is allocated not by supply and demand but by political pull.”
“How do these programs subsidize business? The Economic Development Administration for example, offers loans, loan guarantees, interest rate subsidies, grants, and other assistance to businesses and local governments. The Small Business Administration assists a fraction of one percent of the nation’s small businesses, and political pull is often the deciding factor. The Community Planning and Development Program gives grants to state and local governments, which then hand out funds to corporations for development projects that should be paid for by the businesses involved.”
“The items in this category [........] demonstrate an important lesson about the federal budget: THE REAL COST OF MANY PROGRAMS DOESN’T SHOW UP IN THE BUDGET. The real threat to the taxpayers from the SBA, for instance, is not direct budgetary outlays but the $12 billion in outstanding loans and loan guarantees. The $1.2 million in direct outlays may seem like a small price to pay for keeping Chrysler alive — except to those who favor a competitive economy — but the real cost is the $1.2 billion in federally guaranteed loans. Because the government has allocated $1.2 billion in credit to Chrysler, which was not considered credit worthy by the market, an unknown number of other businesses and individuals will be unable to borrow that money.”
“When other countries tax their citizens to subsidize exports, we call it dumping and impose penalties on them. When we finance U.S. exports, we call it “stimulating mutually beneficial trade relations with other countries.”[8] The Export-Import Bank makes loans and guarantees private loans to foreign countries, which then use the funds to purchase goods from specified American companies. Two-thirds of these loans and loan guarantees, which now amount to a total of almost $30 billion, benefit seven major companies. American exporters should compete in a free market, selling their goods to willing buyers and borrowing funds at the same interest rates other companies pay. Export subsidies distort the capital market, allocate resources to non-productive uses, and benefit politically powerful companies at the expense of those that satisfy consumers.”
The Reagan era is NOT what you purport it to be nor any administration since Reagan, when it comes to real budgets and real debt….not even the famed Clinton era! But, I shall not waste my time highlighting all the unfunded budget debts rolled up from each administration. Even the Obama’s administration who declared he was going to put all spending into the budget continues to operate with off-budget spending. These kinds of liabilities become layers upon layers snowballing on into years that can only be speculated at by government and private sector accounting and analysis entities. For instance, try analyzing with some definitive correctness, the liabilities steming the housing debacle of recent or import offsets or…… Nothing is ever what it appears to be on the surface!
This is correct. Reagan included many things, and he was honest about it. He acknowledged that the other side was elected, too, and he compromised many times. My point, though, was that he offered balanced budgets. The Democrats controlled the House where spending bills needed to originate. He had to allow certain things, because they had the power in this. His job was really to just keep it to a minimum. In this he was fairly successful.
Without the military buildup, there would have been a balanced budget. Cutting it back in the 90′s netted $200Bil+ in reduced military outlay. Reagan’s budgets had reduced domestic spending. The House added it back in. Reagan thus kept it to the same level roughly throughout his administration. The deficit then was basically all about our Cold War buildup, which wrecked the USSR. It was money well-spent.
Marc…I just went to the trouble to post portions of a very conservative think tank from the Reagan era who did a fair job of showing how huge amounts of spending ‘liabilities’ do NOT show up in the budgets when presented and or legislatively authorized. These many liabilities snowball from one adminstration to another. In every instance, its administrations down the road having to eventually fund the past unfunded liability obligations. Just look at the historical charts to see where spending and debt increases administration by administration. For the past few decades innovative accounting methods have essentially made it impossible to find and recognize coming obligations. For example, Gingrich and Clinton pride themselves with claims of balanced budgets and in fact creating a budget surplus. The FACT is, there hasn’t been a budget surplus since the early 1960′s. If you understand cash based accounting versus accrual based accounting, I needn’t expand on the fallacy of the Clinton and Ginrich surplus.
Regardless, I’m about done since many folks on here have all the precise solutions to all the problems. I’ll just sit back and watch as the eutopia comes to fruition, should I live that long. Sounds at though I will, as certainly the solutions appear to be immediate if the Tea Party folks can get their majority government.
“For nearly two years the GOP and Tea Party folks have had nothing but tough rhetoric for BIG cuts to all spending and especially the ‘welfare’ programs they label as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Well, those got put on the table within a $3 trillion dollars in spending cut offer by the President and they have essentially ran from it under the guise of $1 trillion tax revenues being on the table also.”
This is false. You have been putting forth a lot of Lefty BS lately, TT. Whence are you getting your info?
Obama is required to offer a budget to Congress every year, by law. His only offer was not a formal bill, just a budget proposal. He only TALKS about budgets, never DOES anything about it. His words are worthless. When called upon to vote on his “proposal”, which offered many trillions more in deficit spending, the Senate voted it down, 0-97.
In contrast, the Repub House has passed 2 budgets already this year, and both have died in the Dem Senate. The Dems refuse to offer a budget, nor even allow one. Refuse! Ryan’s budget actually offered reform of Medicare and SS, and the Dems killed it and demagogued it. WHAT THE HECK DO YOU WANT FROM THEM, HUH?
Quit complaining about the Repubs. Start pointing the finger at the real problem, Democrats!
I am getting tired of correcting all the same stupid misinformation, TT. After you, it will be someone else who has started to read Lefty propaganda and regurgitates it here. “Vomit clean-up on aisle 3″ gets real tiresome.
Marc…Sorry you’re tuning out from reality!
Politico as only one source 7/11/11….["The president argued several times that negotiators should work toward a $4 trillion package for reducing the deficit rather than the smaller one favored by Republicans, calling on them to stand up to their base to get it done. He said both parties would suffer politically, but they need to do something substantial, said a third Democratic official familiar with the meeting."]
Please do not attempt to call me a liar when you fail to support your claims! The above widely announced offer broke down as $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in revenue.
Conservative site “the Daily Caller” 07/07/11….["The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues."]
I suppose you’d call me a liar if I were to say Obama put social security and medicare on the negotiating table also!
You can rant all you want to about how the House has passed two budget bills and the Senate has refused to bring a budget bill to the floor. Thats how congress within the confines of the constitution can and does work in managing what comes to the floor and what doesn’t…like it or hate it! What goes around, comes around in the congress! I could waste my time in citing time after time over decades where the GOP majorities have functioned in the same manner over many issues…..many, many budget related!
Our nations problems have come through the hands of both parties over decades and its going to take BOTH durn parties to fix thing…unless of course one no longer wants to respect the constitutional processes of government.
Politics, especially the bias variety, nevers fixes anything! So long as the people chose a two party system it requires concilaitory governance to fixe things!
But, this is America and you’re certainly free to perpetuate biased division over attempts for concilaitory resolve.
Of the ‘plans’ that have been brought public by the GOP, they increase spending and the national debt! I thought that was the anti battle cry of the GOP activists! Likewise, the democrats plans increase spending and the national debt. Thats part of the reality! The rest of the reality is that neither side is going to embark on the extremes required to save the nations declining economy and liabilitities debt…the sacrificial consequences on society are to great and mature, informed adults understand that catch 22, just as other European nations in similar circumstance understand. The party is over but nobody is going to turn out the light!
Have a great weekend Marc.
I’m not calling you a liar. I am saying you are wrong. The President SAID these things, true, but what he SAYS doesn’t matter. His inactions speak so loudly, I cannot hear a word he is saying. His words never mean anything. They are just words, and tomorrow he will say something else, often the opposite. Where is his budget with such cuts involved?
You are right that the Repub budgets are too timid, even the Ryan one. Once the interest rates begin to rise, all the “savings” in that bill will get wiped out by the increased interest on the debt, because most of our debt is financed by short-term notes.
They did this on purpose, not because they were being nefarious, but because they wanted to present eminently reasonable, mild budgets, so they could not be accused of being draconian. It worked. The public did not really have a problem with these budgets which got killed in the Senate. Now, the public is more aware. Even AARP is supportive.
Now, we will see a short-term debt deal get done, and we will see a better budget bill being offered. That offer will NOT come from Obama, except in mere words.
“Words, words, words. I hear words all day through, first from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do?” – Eliza Doolittle, “My Fair Lady” Enjoy your weekend, too, TT.
THE GREAT OBAMA BLUFF
The gist of what Obama said at the press conference yesterday was this:
“If you Republicans continue to childishly oppose me and don’t agree to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes on a weak economy (soaking the rich like
“If you Republicans continue to childishly oppose me and don’t agree to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes on a weak economy (soaking the rich like Hoover did in the 1930s) then I’ll be forced to do the unthinkable: I’LL OPT FOR ARMAGEDDON and blow up everything. I warn you GOP if I don’t get my way on tax hikes to cut the huge deficit (caused by my reckless spending) I’ll default on the debt and plunge the nation into a second Great Depression (the one I saved you from with my stimulus); and it will be on your heads.”
This was the message of a president who said in the same breath that his “50th birthday was next week” when it’s three weeks away; and that 80% of Americans (including most Republicans) support his “balanced” approach to solving the debt crisis (though he’s against balancing the budget). Should we fear what Obama said and take him seriously? HELL NO! What we saw was empty fearmongering by a weak man ready to cave. It’s like the Freudian slip that he made to Eric Cantor when he walked out on him Wednesday, “Don’t call my bluff…..,” he said. Because that’s what he’s doing, HE’S BLUFFING.
Google ApolloSpeaks to read my widely linked townhall piece, Barack Obama and the Crack Up of Liberalism.
The fact of the matter still remains: The wealthy are the ones who have the capital to create jobs. The government does NOT create jobs. Taxing the wealthy to a point where they simply pull their money into tax shelters instead of investing it into the economy is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. STUPID.
Obama will have a place to go IF indeed he fails to send out the money for SS/SSD recipients. Many, if not most of them will not. But then, why should HE care. What the Idiot King doesn’t realize is that SS money is NOT an entitlement. It was paid into by the recipients and managed (supposedly) by the government. The government mismanaged the money, therefore it is the government’s responsibility to see to it that these people are given THEIR money. Furthermore, the government TOOK these people’s money; there was no option not to pay SS. It’s an automatic deduction, a tax if you will. The people have every RIGHT to be angry. And an angry people can be very powerful.
Defeating the Obama Machine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64N_uYA35Y
Lies, Race, and the Debt Ceiling
President Barack Hussein Obama’s alternate universe is catching up with him. Being an inveterate and practiced liar can do that to a person. Such people eventually tend to an inability to distinguish truth and facts from fiction and fantasy.
Obama demonstrated reality slippage when he misstated his daughter’s age and even seems confused as to his own age. Those examples are relatively harmless, except to his daughter and birthday planners. However, his flight into fantasy on public support for higher taxes in lieu of massive spending cuts is positively dangerous, disturbing, and symptomatic of his allegedly massive brain in disarray, or his continued baldfaced lying.
Fortunately–for Barack–his back is well-covered with the race card supplied by black racist Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). And, here I thought America was beyond all that race crap thanks to our first semi-African-American president!
Having already scared the bejesus out of elders by threatening to cut off their Social Security checks, just one day following the publication of a highly reputable Rasmussen Report showing that barely a third of Americans favor raising taxes to pay for more Democrat profligacy and that 55% oppose that insanity, Obama announced at a press conference that 80% of the public is “sold” on the necessity of tax hikes.
As I said, baldfaced lying or alternate universe. I’m not sure which is worse.
Neither Rasmussen nor the president made crystal clear the source of their percentages. The Rasmussen survey was based on a telephone sampling of a thousand likely voters taken July 12-13. See all the Rasmussen Report numbers here: http://bit.ly/o9Kaxl
Obama didn’t poll anyone. His 80% “sold” was predicated on wishful thinking.
Neither officially factored in the 45% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes or the one-seventh of the public that collects food stamps, groups which overlap and which couldn’t give a damn about the national debt or taxes since they don’t pay any taxes and are living on the public dole.
Further illustrating his reality disconnect, or blatant lying, or both, the ideologically-driven leftist Obama also pointed out the essential cause of the D.C. stalemate on the debt limit: ”The problem is [Republican] members of Congress are dug in ideologically” and virtual slaves to lobbyists and “special interests.”
He made no mention of his own locked-in special interest constituencies, the tax-free 45% and the food-stampers. (http://bit.ly/rq8lt2)
Our leader has no worries, though. Astronomical national debt, record deficits, the potential bankruptcy of the United States of America are of little consequence. All of this partisan brouhaha has nothing to do with the issues at hand, according to Rep. Jackson Lee. It all has to do with race. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5015
The President and Congress should be challenge in the legality of budget and debt ceiling talks.
The piece “Debt Ceiling Negotiations Are Unlawful” proves it by citing the present Law of the Land of the “Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act”. It is too long to cite it here, even in its shorten form as this piece does. You can check it out at http://robbingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-negotiations-are-unlawful.html
It is really amazing – and worrisome – with what easy, and little attention from the media, we break the law now days – and by our own government representatives
No, they are not “breaking the law”. No law passed by a previous Congress is binding upon a later Congress. This was sorted out long ago.
Put another way, what is the penalty if they “break” this law? Is there a fine? Jail time? No, there is no penalty, thus it is not really a law, just another meaningless resolution.
The President is required to submit a budget, yes, and the Congress could impeach him for failure to do so (although they never will); But there is no similar penalty for Congress, because they cannot be bound by such a law.
B HO reminds me of the man who had an enormous bean burrito for lunch, He gets on a crowded elevator and farts. As the gas spreads through out the elevator, he turns to the man next to him and asks, “Why did you do that?”
For a heads up on what dissembling, lying hypocrites Senate Democrats are, including but not limited to The One™ during his own brief tenure in that body.
Every democrat Senator voted “nay” on raising the debt ceiling in 2006, including Barry
Thank you, I have just been looking for information approximately this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I have found out so far. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you certain concerning the source?|What i don’t realize is actually how you’re no longer really a lot more neatly-liked than you might be right now. You are so intelligent.
Hello, i feel that i noticed you visited my website so i got here to go back the favor?.I am attempting to find issues to improve my web site!I assume its adequate to use a few of your concepts!!
Great post. I used to be checking constantly this weblog and I am inspired! Extremely helpful information specifically the last part
I take care of such info a lot. I was looking for this certain info for a long time. Thanks and good luck.
Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I have really enjoyed surfing around your weblog posts. In any case I?ll be subscribing in your rss feed and I’m hoping you write again very soon!
I appreciate, lead to I found exactly what I was taking a look for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
I’m extremely inspired along with your writing talents and also with the structure on your blog. Is that this a paid subject or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a great weblog like this one nowadays..