Another no vote on the debt ceiling

[Toro]

Anyone else find it extremely amusing for the left to be calling for more debt when it was the left who under Bush screamed the loudest about 485 billion now the debt is 15 trillion and the same self serving Left says nary a word except it want's more.

I'm trying hard to understand this do you on the left think you''ll get some sort of prize for sinking our Nation even further than what this current administration has accomplished in 3 year's?

We absolutely must put a plan together to deal with the deficit, but starting to cut out 11% of GDP and a possible default in a manner of weeks is insane.

 

[DaGoose]

So, then...
You agree that labelling the GOP congressional minority as "obstructionist" and "the party of no" was just a bunch of partisan hooey.
Right?

No, that was the truth as well. The GnOP voted "no" to everything, even policies they once introduced or supported. They stated that they would from the onset. Their ONLY goal was to destroy this President in any matter possible. They stated as much.

They didn't give two shits about the country and what was best for it, they cared only about their political aspirations and in "getting" the President. Before every meeting, the GnOP leaders would make a statement about how it didn't matter what the President had to say, they were opposing whatever it was. The obstructionism in the recent GnOP is historic (you can look it up).

The Koch sucking GnOP's theme song:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0]YouTube - I'm against it!.wmv[/ame]

I'd neg rep your ass but you redeemed it by at least posting some cool Marx Bros material.
Of course Obama's favorite Marx Brother is Karl.

Just out of curiousity why would you have even considered giving him a "neg rep"? Did he lie? Did he personally attack you? What's your criteria for giving someone a "neg rep"?

.

 

[Robert]

Anyone else find it extremely amusing for the left to be calling for more debt when it was the left who under Bush screamed the loudest about 485 billion now the debt is 15 trillion and the same self serving Left says nary a word except it want's more.

I'm trying hard to understand this do you on the left think you''ll get some sort of prize for sinking our Nation even further than what this current administration has accomplished in 3 year's?

We absolutely must put a plan together to deal with the deficit, but starting to cut out 11% of GDP and a possible default in a manner of weeks is insane.

Yes that's all very entertaining and it completely fails to answer why after the 33 billion debacle that the actual cuts after Obama cooked the books was something south of 300 million. So please save us all from the standard lines the left has little interest in doing anything about the debt.

 

[Toro]

Anyone else find it extremely amusing for the left to be calling for more debt when it was the left who under Bush screamed the loudest about 485 billion now the debt is 15 trillion and the same self serving Left says nary a word except it want's more.

I'm trying hard to understand this do you on the left think you''ll get some sort of prize for sinking our Nation even further than what this current administration has accomplished in 3 year's?

We absolutely must put a plan together to deal with the deficit, but starting to cut out 11% of GDP and a possible default in a manner of weeks is insane.

Yes that's all very entertaining and it completely fails to answer why after the 33 billion debacle that the actual cuts after Obama cooked the books was something south of 300 million. So please save us all from the standard lines the left has little interest in doing anything about the debt.

I'm not the Left.

I had a front row seat into the financial melt-down, and I strongly believe that not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic and possibly trigger a debt and currency crisis that reducing the deficit is supposed to alleviate. If I thought this was serious, I would sell every single thing I could in America and move it offshore.

 

[Robert]

We absolutely must put a plan together to deal with the deficit, but starting to cut out 11% of GDP and a possible default in a manner of weeks is insane.

Yes that's all very entertaining and it completely fails to answer why after the 33 billion debacle that the actual cuts after Obama cooked the books was something south of 300 million. So please save us all from the standard lines the left has little interest in doing anything about the debt.

I'm not the Left.

I had a front row seat into the financial melt-down, and I strongly believe that not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic and possibly trigger a debt and currency crisis that reducing the deficit is supposed to alleviate.

Didn't say you were and frankly don't care it still doesn't addressed what we've already seen from this administration and sheep that follow him.

You'll not get an argument out of me about addressing the Debt more IMPORTANTLY the spending that has created the debt and continues to grow the debt.

The simple fact is the lefts seeming only interest in doing anything about the debt is to continue to spend even grander amount's.

There is a segment of our society that is deeply concerned about the current course this administration has taken and they are doing everything they can to bring about change of course this change will take place without the help of the same left who today attack anyone who dares suggest that something be done about it.

The Debt ceiling will be raised that's not the problem its the spending that will increase because the ceiling being raised that's the problem until we correct the underlying issue the problem will continue to grow.

 

[Flopper]

Yes or no??

Does it matter?? They still keep spending.

Of course it matters. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will be forced to default on its financial obligations.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes or no??

Does it matter?? They still keep spending.

Of course it matters. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will be forced to default on its financial obligations.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Never underestimate the gov't's ability to engage in legerdemain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Debt ceiling is going to get raised. Some legislators in conservative districts will need political cover so they will vote no. However this will get done.

Of course in the end it has to get done, but the Republicans should damn Sure try and Get as much Spending reduction as possible out of them in a deal. We are on a clear path to losing our Triple A rating. To those who do not think that is a big deal, check out how the Economies of other countries that had it and lost it are fairing. Realize that only like 5 Countries have ever lost their AAA Rating and then went on to regain it.

While Default would be bad for our Rating, So is Raising the Debt Limit once again. The Only way to Avoid losing the Rating, is to show RIGHT NOW that we are indeed getting serious about Deficit Reduction. If we just raise this limit and do nothing about Spending. I wager we lose the AAA rating before we get to the New Limit we set.

Why? Why does it have to be done? Do you honestly believe there is no way to find enough expenses to eliminate to keep from raising and raising and raising the 'acceptable' debt?

Congress can eliminate half their expense accounts and agree to pay for their retirement and health benefits themselves.

They can eliminate hundreds of millions in expenses by going to government warehouses where hundreds of acres of perfectly good furnishings and equipment is stored and use that instead of buying new.

They can rescind Obama care and ALL such entitlements that have not already addicted people and save billions. They can save billions more by cancelling all unspent monies for earmarks, nonessential construction contracts, and a lot of foreign aid.

They can save billions more by eliminating outright or phasing out grants and gifts to special interests and good causes that should be looking elsewhere for funding.

They can save even more billions by closing government agencies that haven't been accomplishing anything for decades and consolidating a lot of others when there isn't really much for an agency to do.

Don't tell me that they HAVE to increase the debt limit before they have eliminated ALL payola, graft, waste, and feel good stuff that never should have been the responsibility of the federal government in the first place.

We are NEVER going to get our fiscal house in order until we put Congress on a strict diet and limit how much it has to spend.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, then...
You agree that labelling the GOP congressional minority as "obstructionist" and "the party of no" was just a bunch of partisan hooey.
Right?

No, that was the truth as well. The GnOP voted "no" to everything, even policies they once introduced or supported.

If every single member of the GOP voted against a bill, and it failed to pass, why did it fail to pass?

They didn't give two shits about the country and what was best for it...

On the contrary... opposing The Obama's agenda is indeed what is best for the country.

When the Democrats hold a super majority, which they did for awhile, every GOP member voting against a bill was NOT the reason the bill didn't pass. The reason it didn't pass is because it was too bad a bill for even enough Democrats to support. I am thinking of Bill Clinton's first budget that was sooooo bad it didn't get Democratic or GOP votes. Ditto for Hillarycare. Sometimes they get it right despite stupid partisanship.

But I agree that opposing Obama's agenda is not only the right thing to do, but is true statesmanship. Obama's agenda is bad for business, bad for the people, bad for the country and it should be opposed by all our fearless leaders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I wouldn't be too sure about a debt ceiling raise. Strange things can happen.

Like the fact that most Americans oppose raising it, despite the fact that they have been told the world will cease to exist as we know it? A tough sell just got tougher.

Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.
Eighty-three percent of Republicans oppose raising the limit, along with 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats. Support for raising the debt limit is just 36 percent among Democrats, and only 14 percent among Republicans.
Seven in ten who oppose raising the debt limit stand by that position even if it means that interest rates will go up.

Poll: Most Americans oppose raising debt limit - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

 

[Flopper]

Debt ceiling is going to get raised. Some legislators in conservative districts will need political cover so they will vote no. However this will get done.

Of course in the end it has to get done, but the Republicans should damn Sure try and Get as much Spending reduction as possible out of them in a deal. We are on a clear path to losing our Triple A rating. To those who do not think that is a big deal, check out how the Economies of other countries that had it and lost it are fairing. Realize that only like 5 Countries have ever lost their AAA Rating and then went on to regain it.

While Default would be bad for our Rating, So is Raising the Debt Limit once again. The Only way to Avoid losing the Rating, is to show RIGHT NOW that we are indeed getting serious about Deficit Reduction. If we just raise this limit and do nothing about Spending. I wager we lose the AAA rating before we get to the New Limit we set.

Default bad for our bond rating? A default will change our rating from AAA to D, Default. I recently sold $10,000 worth Lehman bonds for $1900.

 

[Flopper]

Debt ceiling is going to get raised. Some legislators in conservative districts will need political cover so they will vote no. However this will get done.

Of course in the end it has to get done, but the Republicans should damn Sure try and Get as much Spending reduction as possible out of them in a deal. We are on a clear path to losing our Triple A rating. To those who do not think that is a big deal, check out how the Economies of other countries that had it and lost it are fairing. Realize that only like 5 Countries have ever lost their AAA Rating and then went on to regain it.

While Default would be bad for our Rating, So is Raising the Debt Limit once again. The Only way to Avoid losing the Rating, is to show RIGHT NOW that we are indeed getting serious about Deficit Reduction. If we just raise this limit and do nothing about Spending. I wager we lose the AAA rating before we get to the New Limit we set.

Why? Why does it have to be done? Do you honestly believe there is no way to find enough expenses to eliminate to keep from raising and raising and raising the 'acceptable' debt?

Congress can eliminate half their expense accounts and agree to pay for their retirement and health benefits themselves.

They can eliminate hundreds of millions in expenses by going to government warehouses where hundreds of acres of perfectly good furnishings and equipment is stored and use that instead of buying new.

They can rescind Obama care and ALL such entitlements that have not already addicted people and save billions. They can save billions more by cancelling all unspent monies for earmarks, nonessential construction contracts, and a lot of foreign aid.

They can save billions more by eliminating outright or phasing out grants and gifts to special interests and good causes that should be looking elsewhere for funding.

They can save even more billions by closing government agencies that haven't been accomplishing anything for decades and consolidating a lot of others when there isn't really much for an agency to do.

Don't tell me that they HAVE to increase the debt limit before they have eliminated ALL payola, graft, waste, and feel good stuff that never should have been the responsibility of the federal government in the first place.

We are NEVER going to get our fiscal house in order until we put Congress on a strict diet and limit how much it has to spend.

If took over 3 months for the two sides to decide on a 34 billion budget cut. What makes you think they could agree on trillion dollar cut in less time?

If we want a balance budget, we need a balance budget amendment to the Constitution. Whether it’s war or social programs, congress will always follow the desires of their supporters. The lack of funding is always justified with promises of great benefits to the nation, which rarely occurs.

I don’t think that forcing the government to renege on our financial obligations is the way to put our house in order. Apparently the holders of 15 trillion dollars of US debt are not too worried about the bill passing. If they did, treasury bill prices would be falling like a rock and interest rates would be skyrocketing.

From what I have read, July 8th is the date when things start getting real messy. The US would start operating on a cash flow basis. Without some action of Congress, the administration would decide who gets paid and who doesn't. Since the US has never failed to live up to its financial obligations, I don’t think anyone knows just what would happen, but one thing is for sure, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government will have a new meaning.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is true. We cannot default on what we are obligated to pay. But we don't have to see funding of the NEA, NPR, PBS, Headstart, Planned Parenthood, congressional perks, a bridge to nowhere, new construction, new agencies, new czars, etc. etc. etc. as obligations. Only when they have made expendable everything that can be made expendable, and they are nowhere even close to that, should we even consider supporting an increase in the debt limit.

Congress has seen the federal treasury as a no limit credit card for far too long now. If we don't limit how much they can spend, they will no observe any limits of any kind. They've proved that. And we need to support those who are trying to fix that problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If took over 3 months for the two sides to decide on a 34 billion budget cut. What makes you think they could agree on trillion dollar cut in less time?

They don't need to agree to anything. If the debt ceiling is not raised before the arbitrary deadline The Treasury still has statuary authority to decide what bills to pay and in what order to do so. The only reason we will default is if Geithner decides to default on paying the bills.

If we want a balance budget, we need a balance budget amendment to the Constitution. Whether it’s war or social programs, congress will always follow the desires of their supporters. The lack of funding is always justified with promises of great benefits to the nation, which rarely occurs.

We can agree on that anyway. The problem is that there is reasonable no way to get a new amendment in less than a decade.

I don’t think that forcing the government to renege on our financial obligations is the way to put our house in order. Apparently the holders of 15 trillion dollars of US debt are not too worried about the bill passing. If they did, treasury bill prices would be falling like a rock and interest rates would be skyrocketing.

That should tell you something.

From what I have read, July 8th is the date when things start getting real messy. The US would start operating on a cash flow basis. Without some action of Congress, the administration would decide who gets paid and who doesn't. Since the US has never failed to live up to its financial obligations, I don’t think anyone knows just what would happen, but one thing is for sure, backed by the full faith and credit of the US government will have a new meaning.

The end of the universe as we know it.

Or not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's face it. The problem is an unwillingness to offend ANY sacred cow coupled with such extreme partisanship that no discussion of the real issues is likely to happen. Neither side is willing to give the other any credit for a good idea. Neither side is coming up with a lot of good ideas apparently.

And our fearless leader is not helping the situation with his increasingly Marxist tinged rhetoric that is mostly applauded by his adoring media and other followers:

 

[Mr Liberty]

The Debt must get raised because I just bought a bunch more Gold & Silver. I am going to start voting for all big spenders who don't want to raise taxes. I am set for major profit from a US dollar collapse. I think 25% in 30 days is not to much to ask.

I have seen that much in the last two months. Silver is the better choice.
They will increase the debt. Neither party will cut spending enough. We need to cut across the party lines. Entitlements, military and government backed loans. No one is willing to add to the unemployment by laying off a lot of government workers.
Raising the debt ceiling is only the first step, then we have to find someone to loan us more money. Is China, Japan and Britain willing to? This whole thing is a ponzi scheme and I think we are running out of suckers.

 

[Flopper]

This is true. We cannot default on what we are obligated to pay. But we don't have to see funding of the NEA, NPR, PBS, Headstart, Planned Parenthood, congressional perks, a bridge to nowhere, new construction, new agencies, new czars, etc. etc. etc. as obligations. Only when they have made expendable everything that can be made expendable, and they are nowhere even close to that, should we even consider supporting an increase in the debt limit.

Congress has seen the federal treasury as a no limit credit card for far too long now. If we don't limit how much they can spend, they will no observe any limits of any kind. They've proved that. And we need to support those who are trying to fix that problem.

When Congress established a program and approved the budget, government has a financial obligation until Congress reverses their decision.

There has to be thousands of entities within the government, which are cost centers, each issuing contracts and hundreds of thousands of requests for payment for services, goods received, salaries and benefits each day. Government is far too large and complex to rapidly switch to a system in which Congress could decide who is to be paid. Even it were possible, Congress would not make those decisions.

If the debt limit is not raised, I believe government would issue payments in the order received until it ran out of money. Government would then default on all payments until it received more revenue. Certainly, treasury bill redemptions without reinvestment would be huge creating an even bigger problem.

I believe the possibility of government default on it's obligations are greater than many believe. It only takes a single senator to block any bill. There are people on both sides of the fence that will stick to their beliefs regardless of the outcome.

There is no way government could manage something like this. Interest rates would increase and what Congress perceived as a way to reduce spending would actually increase spending.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is true. We cannot default on what we are obligated to pay. But we don't have to see funding of the NEA, NPR, PBS, Headstart, Planned Parenthood, congressional perks, a bridge to nowhere, new construction, new agencies, new czars, etc. etc. etc. as obligations. Only when they have made expendable everything that can be made expendable, and they are nowhere even close to that, should we even consider supporting an increase in the debt limit.

Congress has seen the federal treasury as a no limit credit card for far too long now. If we don't limit how much they can spend, they will no observe any limits of any kind. They've proved that. And we need to support those who are trying to fix that problem.

When Congress established a program and approved the budget, government has a financial obligation until Congress reverses their decision.

There has to be thousands of entities within the government, which are cost centers, each issuing contracts and hundreds of thousands of requests for payment for services, goods received, salaries and benefits each day. Government is far too large and complex to rapidly switch to a system in which Congress could decide who is to be paid. Even it were possible, Congress would not make those decisions.

If the debt limit is not raised, I believe government would issue payments in the order received until it ran out of money. Government would then default on all payments until it received more revenue. Certainly, treasury bill redemptions without reinvestment would be huge creating an even bigger problem.

I believe the possibility of government default on it's obligations are greater than many believe. It only takes a single senator to block any bill. There are people on both sides of the fence that will stick to their beliefs regardless of the outcome.

There is no way government could manage something like this. Interest rates would increase and what Congress perceived as a way to reduce spending would actually increase spending.

I am not suggesting that we default. I am suggesting that we stop spending. I'm suggesting that we use up what the government already has before it buys any more of anything. I'm suggesting that we close ineffective or non-essential agencies, that we stop funding projects and organizations that never should have been the responsibility of the Federal government in the first place. I am suggesting that we look to members of Congress to also make personal sacrifice such as personally funding their own health and retirement plans and gym memberships. I'm suggesting that we authorize absolutely no money that does not absolutely have to be spent. And I am suggesting that we start now to phase out entitlement programs slowly and carefully so that we do not break faith with the people.

These are all measures to correct the problem so that we do not default on our obligations and debts while we do not add to them.

To say that government is too big to manage efficiently and effectively is not a hell of a lot of incentive to keep sending them more and more money. I am guessing that not a single congressman who votes for the budget has a real clue about what is in it. That needs to stop now.

 

[edthecynic]

Anyone else find it extremely amusing for the left to be calling for more debt when it was the left who under Bush screamed the loudest about 485 billion now the debt is 15 trillion and the same self serving Left says nary a word except it want's more.

I'm trying hard to understand this do you on the left think you''ll get some sort of prize for sinking our Nation even further than what this current administration has accomplished in 3 year's?

No more amusing than the Right suddenly bitching about deficits when they said they don't matter during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II borrowing and spending sprees.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."
Dick Cheney

'I don't worry about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself.'
Ronald Reagan

 

[Flopper]

This is true. We cannot default on what we are obligated to pay. But we don't have to see funding of the NEA, NPR, PBS, Headstart, Planned Parenthood, congressional perks, a bridge to nowhere, new construction, new agencies, new czars, etc. etc. etc. as obligations. Only when they have made expendable everything that can be made expendable, and they are nowhere even close to that, should we even consider supporting an increase in the debt limit.

Congress has seen the federal treasury as a no limit credit card for far too long now. If we don't limit how much they can spend, they will no observe any limits of any kind. They've proved that. And we need to support those who are trying to fix that problem.

When Congress established a program and approved the budget, government has a financial obligation until Congress reverses their decision.

There has to be thousands of entities within the government, which are cost centers, each issuing contracts and hundreds of thousands of requests for payment for services, goods received, salaries and benefits each day. Government is far too large and complex to rapidly switch to a system in which Congress could decide who is to be paid. Even it were possible, Congress would not make those decisions.

If the debt limit is not raised, I believe government would issue payments in the order received until it ran out of money. Government would then default on all payments until it received more revenue. Certainly, treasury bill redemptions without reinvestment would be huge creating an even bigger problem.

I believe the possibility of government default on it's obligations are greater than many believe. It only takes a single senator to block any bill. There are people on both sides of the fence that will stick to their beliefs regardless of the outcome.

There is no way government could manage something like this. Interest rates would increase and what Congress perceived as a way to reduce spending would actually increase spending.

I am not suggesting that we default. I am suggesting that we stop spending. I'm suggesting that we use up what the government already has before it buys any more of anything. I'm suggesting that we close ineffective or non-essential agencies, that we stop funding projects and organizations that never should have been the responsibility of the Federal government in the first place. I am suggesting that we look to members of Congress to also make personal sacrifice such as personally funding their own health and retirement plans and gym memberships. I'm suggesting that we authorize absolutely no money that does not absolutely have to be spent. And I am suggesting that we start now to phase out entitlement programs slowly and carefully so that we do not break faith with the people.

These are all measures to correct the problem so that we do not default on our obligations and debts while we do not add to them.

To say that government is too big to manage efficiently and effectively is not a hell of a lot of incentive to keep sending them more and more money. I am guessing that not a single congressman who votes for the budget has a real clue about what is in it. That needs to stop now.

I completely agree we the need to cut spending, however this should be done through the budget process, not after financial commitments are made.

If Congress tries to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies and specific programs, they will fail to achieve meaningful spending cuts. The House wanted to cut 293 million from Planned Parenthood, which resulted in a major clash between the two sides and for what? This would have reduced the deficit by .019%. You mentioned NPR. Attempt to cut NPR and there will be another fight and for what? NPR derives only 2% of its budget from the federal government. This amounts 3.6 million dollars, .00024% of the deficit. Making cuts based political ideology is not going to solve the problem. Dropping Gym membership for congressmen, cutting off the lights in Whitehouse, and elimination of first class travel are good political jesters of shared sacrifice, but in the end this would be just distractions from the real tasks.

In order to get a plan through Congress that significantly reduces cost, Congress is going have to concentrate on cost reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. I doubt very seriously if any plan would clear the Senate without some increase in personal income tax. The best approach would be to reconsider how we raise revenues, addressing both personal and corporate taxes, deductions, and rates.