I was fairly shocked at one outright lie the President told last night. He said it was a myth that raising the debt ceiling would mean Congress could spend more money.

That's demonstrably a lie. If the debt ceiling is not raised, what happens?

Well, we may go into default. Many say we will and it is only a question of "when." One thing that is clear: with no debt ceiling increase, the government would have to make massive cuts in spending.

So, raising the ceiling . . . enables more spending. Duh.

I am NOT proposing failing to lift the ceiling. I am saying the President was dishonest. He could have given many reasons, some good, for raising the debt ceiling. What he said though, in this instance, was patently false.

Depends by how much it is lifted. If it's only enough to keep the government ticking over until deficits fall, then it won't enable more spending than is currently programmed.

danivon wrote:Depends by how much it is lifted. If it's only enough to keep the government ticking over until deficits fall, then it won't enable more spending than is currently programmed.

Currently, there is NO budget.

The President's budget went down in the Senate, 97-0. It included $1T annual deficits far into the future. That is not a plan to contain spending.

Steve

He said it was a myth that raising the debt ceiling would mean Congress could spend more money.

He;'s right when he says that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean Congress can spend more money. Authorization to spend money is a seperate matter from the debt ceiling.
The spending has already been authorized by Congress.
The means to borrow money to meet the authorized spending is whats at question.
Not raising the debt ceiling doesn't change the spending obligations. All it does is mean that money can't be borrowed to meet the mandated spending.

There may not have been a budget passed for a while, but there are committed spends coming up, are there not? Do you need a 'budget' to know you have to pay the social security checks to retirees who are entitled to them?

Your tenacious zeal to blame it all on one man is laudable, but it's not just 'him' that is the issue here. A fair proportion of both parties are required to agree in order for a budget to be passed through both the House and Congress, and still there seems to be no real agreement coming. I can see that since February's budget statement there have been various proposals, so harping back to that (how many times have you repeated the result of that Senate vote, Steve? Do you think repetition adds anything to the debate?) is missing a lot of the picture.

I don't think that the GOP look all that good out of this. Boehner's refusal to return calls doesn't look like a keenness to negotiate and come to a deal, it looks like petulance. I can understand that there are some Republicans elected on Tea Party ticket who stood on a platform of no tax rises. I can also understand that other congressmen and women might be looking at their own election platforms.

It looks like brinkmanship to me. The ceiling was reached in May. The estimate is that some time next week revenues and assets will no longer cover all costs. Should that happen, it's default. Once the USA defaults, it's credit rating is hit and the cost of borrowing will go up, the dollar will be hit. The market will not react with positive effects, no matter how economically 'sound' or ideologically correct the position of people in power may be. Perhaps people will blame the President. Perhaps they won't. Frankly, that's the least of the issues, and making it all about 'him' is what really does spook people.

How far are some prepared to go to hold the US economy to ransom over the federal budget so that Obama's position is harmed/maintained?

I wish people would remember that the priority of importance is this:

1) The overall US economy
2) The US federal Budget
3) Which politician gets to spend 2013-17 in the White House

rickyp wrote:Steve

He said it was a myth that raising the debt ceiling would mean Congress could spend more money.

He;'s right when he says that raising the debt ceiling doesn't mean Congress can spend more money.

Well, not exactly correct. Let's say the ceiling is not lifted. Can Congress spend more than they bring in?

No.

Authorization to spend money is a seperate matter from the debt ceiling.

Again, not so if all the money over and above has to be borrowed. That is the case here.

The spending has already been authorized by Congress.

Some of it. Maybe you haven't been listening, but the President has been plain: he wants this resolved so he can start "investing" again. That means spending what we don't have.

Sure. He doesn't want it resolved to avoid a default. That would be craziness!

danivon wrote:There may not have been a budget passed for a while, but there are committed spends coming up, are there not? Do you need a 'budget' to know you have to pay the social security checks to retirees who are entitled to them?

Um, no. We also don't need to raise the debt ceiling to do that.

On the matter of a budget though, I see a lot of families drowning in debt. The two problems: 1) overspending; 2) no budget.

When the Federal government has no budget, it's not supposed to pass any authorization bills. The GOP made a show of that a couple of weeks ago in the Senate.

Your tenacious zeal to blame it all on one man is laudable, but it's not just 'him' that is the issue here.

Ordinarily, you might be right. However, from the reporting out there, there was a deal between Reid and Boehner. Reid goes to the President who, apparently, got his little feelings hurt because he was left out of the process.

I can see that since February's budget statement there have been various proposals, so harping back to that (how many times have you repeated the result of that Senate vote, Steve? Do you think repetition adds anything to the debate?) is missing a lot of the picture.

No, Obama fan, it's not. Since his budget went down in flames on MAY 26th, he has committed to nothing on paper. What kind of "leader" does that?

The Democrats had no proposal until yesterday. Nothing.

So, all this talk about "crisis," "emergency," and "Armageddon" and all the Democrats did was snipe at the GOP. Now that they actually have to do something, Reid put a smoke and mirrors proposal out and Obama . . . still nothing. Oh wait. He has made another veto threat--in the interest of bipartisanship, I suppose. He's so bipartisan--call the Republicans all kind of names, ridicule all their proposals, push and push them, then put out no proposal of his own. If he were a Dip player, there would only be one worse here at Redscape--and he knows who he is.

In other words, that is no way to forge consensus, to lead, or to get anything done.

I know, I know. Some Republicans won't vote to raise taxes. So what? Some Democrats won't vote to get entitlements under control--is the President screaming and whining about that?

I don't think that the GOP look all that good out of this. Boehner's refusal to return calls doesn't look like a keenness to negotiate and come to a deal, it looks like petulance.

Was it petulant to reach out to Reid and make a deal? Or, was it petulant to scuttle that deal, even in the supposed face of "Armageddon" because the President has to have the debt raised by 16%-plus just to get through the next 17 months, and he wants to make sure it's not an issue during the election?

He tells us, over and over again, that the people are on his side. If that were true, wouldn't he want the debt debate to be reborn just before the election? After all, he says 80% of Americans agree with his approach. The proof is in the proposal, Mr. President.

I can understand that there are some Republicans elected on Tea Party ticket who stood on a platform of no tax rises. I can also understand that other congressmen and women might be looking at their own election platforms.

But the President gets a pass?

He's been playing politics since December with the tax deal.

Funny thing: Reid, in December when the Dem's controlled both houses, refused to allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling past Nov 2012. Why? Because he wanted the GOP, who just won on cutting spending, to have to eat their words.

In other words, Democrats have played politics all along on this and now we're supposed to be outraged that the Tea Party folks are doing what they said they would do?

It looks like brinkmanship to me. The ceiling was reached in May. The estimate is that some time next week revenues and assets will no longer cover all costs.

Heard an executive with Wells Fargo say the Fed could go until September or October. Again, if this is such an "emergency," where was the President months ago? In April, Jay Carney said the President wanted a "clean raise." He knew that was not going to happen, but they did nothing.

Should that happen, it's default. Once the USA defaults, it's credit rating is hit and the cost of borrowing will go up, the dollar will be hit.

Reid's proposal will guarantee that.

The problem that few liberals seem to get is that raising the debt ceiling does not solve the problem. Spending has to be cut. Rating agencies have to see a plan. Basically, we're in bankruptcy court and have to prove we have a plan to pay our bills. Borrowing more money is not a plan.

How far are some prepared to go to hold the US economy to ransom over the federal budget so that Obama's position is harmed/maintained?

Complete misrepresentation.

Again, raising the debt ceiling will not keep our AAA rating.

I hope they keep strong until Democrats get real. We need a plan and not just another credit card to go with all the others we can't pay off.

I wish people would remember that the priority of importance is this:

1) The overall US economy
2) The US federal Budget
3) Which politician gets to spend 2013-17 in the White House

If you really mean that, you've got all the wrong positions--and so do the Democrats.

danivon wrote:Sure. He doesn't want it resolved to avoid a default. That would be craziness!

Again, a default does not technically occur until we miss a payment of some kind.

From the President:

And what I’ve tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, it’s not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. And if you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, and believes that it is part of what makes our country great that we look after our seniors and we look after the most vulnerable, then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes that are required to make it sustainable over the long term.

And if you’re a progressive that cares about investments in Head Start and student loan programs and medical research and infrastructure, we’re not going to be able to make progress on those areas if we haven’t gotten our fiscal house in order.

So the argument I’m making to my party is, the values we care about — making sure that everybody in this country has a shot at the American Dream and everybody is out there with the opportunity to succeed if they work hard and live a responsible life, and that government has a role to play in providing some of that opportunity through things like student loans and making sure that our roads and highways and airports are functioning, and making sure that we’re investing in research and development for the high-tech jobs of the future — if you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how do we pay for that in a responsible way.

And so, yeah, we’re going to have a sales job; this is not pleasant. It is hard to persuade people to do hard stuff that entails trimming benefits and increasing revenues. But the reason we’ve got a problem right now is people keep on avoiding hard things, and I think now is the time for us to go ahead and take it on.

Is there anything in there to suggest he doesn't just see this as a speed bump to more spending?

Imagine, for a moment, he spent at George W. Bush levels. We wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's not to laud Bush, it is to point out how much this man has spent!

Again, between now and January, 2013, President Obama will have increased our national debt by 16.5%. That is incredible, nearly 1% per month.

That's not a political statement, it's a fact.

We are borrowing more than 40% of our budget now. What is Obama's plan to bring the budget into balance in 10 years?

Is 40% borrowing sustainable?

If not, why isn't the Great Man lifting a finger--or putting a pen to paper--to propose a solution?

Steve, I've tried to show that both sides have faults here, but you don't want to hear it. It's all Obama's fault. I'll leave you to your blogging.

danivon wrote:Steve, I've tried to show that both sides have faults here, but you don't want to hear it. It's all Obama's fault. I'll leave you to your blogging.

I understand. Defending the indefensible must be wearying.

Oh, please.

Boehner's proposal may not even get out of the House, what with the Tea Party not liking it and now the CBO analysis showing lower deficit reduction than he claimed. $1bn off the 2012 deficit? Less over 10 years than the proposed debt limit increase? A rewrite is under way, but adds to the delay.

Is that Obama's fault, too?

danivon wrote:Oh, please.

Boehner's proposal may not even get out of the House, what with the Tea Party not liking it and now the CBO analysis showing lower deficit reduction than he claimed. $1bn off the 2012 deficit? Less over 10 years than the proposed debt limit increase? A rewrite is under way, but adds to the delay.

Is that Obama's fault, too?

Nope. Boehner's.

Not everything is Obama's fault. On the other hand, listen to him and you'll discover that nothing is his fault. In his speech the other night, Bush was blamed, the fiscal crisis was blamed, the intransigence of the GOP was blamed (what about the Dem rank and file revolting over entitlement reform? Nope.) and he was an innocent bystander.

Still, Clinton added over $500M per day to the national debt in his 8 years. Bush added $1.6B per day. Obama? $4.1B.

He has precipitated this disaster by spending more than anyone ever has, blamed everyone else for it, and offered no plan that Americans can see.

I still laugh every time he makes the claim that he saved the jobs of policeman, fireman, and teachers through the Stimulus. What rubbish! You can't "save" a job with a one-time gift of money. Those States were just enabled to keep making bad decisions for one more year. That money, if it was going to be spent at all, should have gone to infrastructure. Now, he's crying about the infrastructure. Well, why didn't you work on that with the $800B you rammed through Congress?

Good job that Reid and McConnell are in a more conciliatory mood, then.

What is wrong with the Reid proposal?

danivon wrote:Good job that Reid and McConnell are in a more conciliatory mood, then.

What is wrong with the Reid proposal?

To begin with, it's a charade. It takes projected costs, like the idea we will maintain surge-like levels of troops in Afghanistan, then cuts those imaginary "costs" and counts them as "savings."

If Reid proposed $2.5T of actual cuts, the GOP would jump on it.