Sen. Demint says he will filibuster debt ceiling vote

[boedicca]

The extent that people don't understand economics is baffling to me.

Does anyone actually know what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

From where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars out of the budget? That's more than Medicare/caid, and Social Security combined.

Obama has bloated the budget so grotesquely in three years, it will not be the end of the world.

Listening and reading several economist on the matter, they say that the apocalyptic claims are highly overrated.

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Roll back federal spending to 2007 levels, and half the problem will be solved.

The other problem with the deficit is that tax receipts as a % of GDP have fallen below 15%. They should be in the 18-19% range. If the economy were growing at the rates seen during other recoveries, the gap would be filled by tax receipts (not tax rate increases, but taxes due to economic growth). 20%+ under and unemployment means LOWER TAX RECEIPTS.

The real agenda is getting the economy growing again - cutting spending is part of this in that it reduces the drain from the private sector.

 

[boedicca]

[
In any case, it's irrelevant because the debt ceiling will be raised. The main problem here is what comes after that - they are going to have to compromise, and they will have to raise taxes and focus on reducing the cost of the big-ticket stuff instead of getting quagmired in entirely irrelevant cuts like parks or foreign aid. Just bringing the tax rates (income, estate, investment) back to Clinton-era levels (not for the <$250,000) would shave off a couple of hundred billion in the next 3-4 years, and an additional hundred billion with a Millionaire's Tax and raising the payroll tax cap so it covers 90% of taxable income again (up from 80% that it has fallen to by not keeping up with inflation). The Pentagon can easily shave off at least 200 billion dollars in bloat, and negotiated Medicare drug prices at least a couple of hundred billion over the next 10 years.

They just gotta keep all the options on the table.

The class warfare tax rates are stupid options to keep on the table.

 

[Ava]

Obama has bloated the budget so grotesquely in three years, it will not be the end of the world.

Listening and reading several economist on the matter, they say that the apocalyptic claims are highly overrated.

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Roll back federal spending to 2007 levels, and half the problem will be solved.

The other problem with the deficit is that tax receipts as a % of GDP have fallen below 15%. They should be in the 18-19% range. If the economy were growing at the rates seen during other recoveries, the gap would be filled by tax receipts (not tax rate increases, but taxes due to economic growth). 20%+ under and unemployment means LOWER TAX RECEIPTS.

The real agenda is getting the economy growing again - cutting spending is part of this in that it reduces the drain from the private sector.

I agree, but I have yet to be convinced that Mr. Obama and his gang are interested in growing the private sector. It is against the agenda of big government to do that, when the goal appears to be to grow the public sector.

 

[boedicca]

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Roll back federal spending to 2007 levels, and half the problem will be solved.

The other problem with the deficit is that tax receipts as a % of GDP have fallen below 15%. They should be in the 18-19% range. If the economy were growing at the rates seen during other recoveries, the gap would be filled by tax receipts (not tax rate increases, but taxes due to economic growth). 20%+ under and unemployment means LOWER TAX RECEIPTS.

The real agenda is getting the economy growing again - cutting spending is part of this in that it reduces the drain from the private sector.

I agree, but I have yet to be convinced that Mr. Obama and his gang are interested in growing the private sector. It is against the agenda of big government to do that, when the goal appears to be to grow the public sector.

They clearly are not interested in growing the private sector. They are concerned about a faux concept of egalitarian "fairness" and making the Rich Pay, even if if means worse economic performance (Obama even admitted this during the 2008 campaign when quizzed about the impact of hiking capital gains taxes).

 

[Epsilon Delta]

[
In any case, it's irrelevant because the debt ceiling will be raised. The main problem here is what comes after that - they are going to have to compromise, and they will have to raise taxes and focus on reducing the cost of the big-ticket stuff instead of getting quagmired in entirely irrelevant cuts like parks or foreign aid. Just bringing the tax rates (income, estate, investment) back to Clinton-era levels (not for the <$250,000) would shave off a couple of hundred billion in the next 3-4 years, and an additional hundred billion with a Millionaire's Tax and raising the payroll tax cap so it covers 90% of taxable income again (up from 80% that it has fallen to by not keeping up with inflation). The Pentagon can easily shave off at least 200 billion dollars in bloat, and negotiated Medicare drug prices at least a couple of hundred billion over the next 10 years.

They just gotta keep all the options on the table.

The class warfare tax rates are stupid options to keep on the table.

How on earth are these class warfare taxes? I'm talking about putting the rate where it was less than 15 years ago. Hardly Bolshevik material. The payroll tax cap has historically been kept at 90% of taxable income, but since they stopped raising the cap to keep up with inflation it only covers ~80% (it should be raised from 106,000 to 180,000 for it to return to levels seen in the 80s). And the millionaire's tax? They're asking for it themselves! Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

 

[Gadawg73]

[
In any case, it's irrelevant because the debt ceiling will be raised. The main problem here is what comes after that - they are going to have to compromise, and they will have to raise taxes and focus on reducing the cost of the big-ticket stuff instead of getting quagmired in entirely irrelevant cuts like parks or foreign aid. Just bringing the tax rates (income, estate, investment) back to Clinton-era levels (not for the <$250,000) would shave off a couple of hundred billion in the next 3-4 years, and an additional hundred billion with a Millionaire's Tax and raising the payroll tax cap so it covers 90% of taxable income again (up from 80% that it has fallen to by not keeping up with inflation). The Pentagon can easily shave off at least 200 billion dollars in bloat, and negotiated Medicare drug prices at least a couple of hundred billion over the next 10 years.

They just gotta keep all the options on the table.

The class warfare tax rates are stupid options to keep on the table.

How on earth are these class warfare taxes? I'm talking about putting the rate where it was less than 15 years ago. Hardly Bolshevik material. The payroll tax cap has historically been kept at 90% of taxable income, but since they stopped raising the cap to keep up with inflation it only covers ~80% (it should be raised from 106,000 to 180,000 for it to return to levels seen in the 80s). And the millionaire's tax? They're asking for it themselves! Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

What other class have they suggested pay more taxes?
45% of Americans pay NO income taxes. How about $1000 a piece to start for each of them? That would bring in 70 billion to start.
If you taxed everyone that made over $100,000.00 a year 100%, TOOK IT ALL, that does not equal 4 trillion, which is the budget.
When will you understand taxes ARE NOT THE PROBLEM? WE SPEND TOO MUCH FUCKING $$$.
And when will you realize that TAXES, run off the producers. Take a look at California. Take a look at American corporations.

 

[Provocateur]

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Roll back federal spending to 2007 levels, and half the problem will be solved.

The other problem with the deficit is that tax receipts as a % of GDP have fallen below 15%. They should be in the 18-19% range. If the economy were growing at the rates seen during other recoveries, the gap would be filled by tax receipts (not tax rate increases, but taxes due to economic growth). 20%+ under and unemployment means LOWER TAX RECEIPTS.

The real agenda is getting the economy growing again - cutting spending is part of this in that it reduces the drain from the private sector.

I agree, but I have yet to be convinced that Mr. Obama and his gang are interested in growing the private sector. It is against the agenda of big government to do that, when the goal appears to be to grow the public sector.

Going one step further, progressives at their core detest the private sector.

Business people have claimed he is the most anti-business president they can imagine.

Problem in the formula for progressives is that the wealthy, including those that own businesses, will simply move their business to where they feel like they won't be penalized for success.

People overseas very much appreciate the progressive approach.




Which leads to the heart of the matter. If this is a simple concept, then surely Obama and his cronies are aware of the outcome.


This lends credence to the claims that Obama thinks that our nation is too wealthy compared to the rest of the world, and that we should not be as prosperous as we have been historically.

He more or less stated that immediately upon taking office.

 

[jeffrockit]

The fear-mongering over this issue is absurd. If the debt ceiling is not raised, the government will still be able to operate. It will simply be forced to live within it's means- that means cuts, lots of them. They can refinance the existing debt, but can no longer issue new debt - the credit card limit has been reached. It is what millions of people face every month.

We can start by selling off our overseas military bases and bringing our troops home- drones are cheaper and more effective. Then we can end all foreign aid. We can layoff every federal employee for 2-3 days per month; close parks etc....We can do many, many things to bring this shit under control. We must make the hard choices.

For all you bleeding heart liberals that simply cannot fathom a (gasp!!) spending cut - just pretend we needed to cut spending so we could all have a pet unicorn, or to fund Obamacare!!

The government needs to live within their means. Seriously, the only way we ever get anything done in this country is when there is a major fucking crisis. Republicans need to follow Rahm's advice and not let this one go to waste.....I seriously hope DeMint has the sack to do it.

So you cut overseas military bases, foreign aid, fulough federal workers for a few days a month, and close all the National parks. Still need to cut about a trillion dollars more to balance the budget.

Ok, we'll follow the Obama plan. Do nothing. ......Fucking idiots.

It is completely asinine to continue to say "it's not that much money to cut" or "that won't make a dent". 100 - 200 billion here and the same in other places will add up. Any and all unnecessary spending cut should be made. In one statement we are told how catastrophic it will be if we don't raise the debt ceiling and the next statement we are told how billions here and there will not make a difference. So I guess that plan is to do nothing except raise the ceiling and give the politicians that continue spending, more room to spend more.

I agree with previous post's stating that before they raise taxes, they need to show that they are serious about cutting spending.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The extent that people don't understand economics is baffling to me.

Does anyone actually know what would happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised?

From where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars out of the budget? That's more than Medicare/caid, and Social Security combined.

Obama has bloated the budget so grotesquely in three years, it will not be the end of the world.

Listening and reading several economist on the matter, they say that the apocalyptic claims are highly overrated.

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Start with repealing Obamacare and go from there.

 

[Political Junky]

Republican senator, Jim Demint, said today that he's willing to filibuster the upcoming debt ceiling vote. And he doesn't seem to care that it would likely hurt Republicans politically.

Jim DeMint Prepared To Filibuster Debt Ceiling Vote

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) signaled he's prepared to filibuster a looming vote to raise the debt ceiling during an appearance on the "Laura Ingraham Show" on Thursday, The Hill reports.

"We're going to filibuster it," said the conservative senator while speaking on the radio program, according to Greenville Online. "You have to do everything you can to keep [Democrats] from raising the debt ceiling because that will force them to do things like balance the budget."

Meanwhile, the South Carolina senator didn't mince words in addressing what raising the debt ceiling could ultimately mean for members of his own party. When asked on Ingraham's program if the impending vote to raise the deficit limit could be Republicans' "Waterloo" in the next election cycle, he responded, "If it is, then let it be."

DeMint is a joke.

 

[JimH52]

The GOP stock has been falling since Ryan came out with his budget. They would lose the rest of the independents if they did filibuster the ceiling.

Even the threat has many voters wondering what the Repubs would do if they were in charge. That memory will carry into 2012.

 

[Toro]

Gee thanks. I missed this first time around. I will watch this guy closely. If he is serious, I will make a lot of money shorting US stocks and bonds. Not only could this be massively disruptive to the money and repo markets, it would immediately start contracting 11% of US GDP.

But I don't think he's serious.

I don't usually trade off politics but I always appreciate when politicians do things that are blatantly stupid so I can make some easy money.

 

[Zona]

The GOP stock has been falling since Ryan came out with his budget. They would lose the rest of the independents if they did filibuster the ceiling.

Even the threat has many voters wondering what the Repubs would do if they were in charge. That memory will carry into 2012.

I say all the way until 2016. Go dems.

Imagine if republicans really were sitting in the oval office. Imagine it.

Oh dear god I am glad McCain picked Palin. Wheeew.

 

[Zona]

Gee thanks. I missed this first time around. I will watch this guy closely. If he is serious, I will make a lot of money shorting US stocks and bonds. Not only could this be massively disruptive to the money and repo markets, it would immediately start contracting 11% of US GDP.

But I don't think he's seious.

I don't usually trade off politics but I always appreciate when politicians do things that are blatantly stupid so I can make some easy money.

But there will be idiots out with signs saying not raise the ceiling. The same idiots who screamed...shut it down, shut it down.


I guarantee you they will be out and they have no fucking idea what they are talking about.

I say, Obama, call that damn bluff and give them NOTHING. They will of course cave and raise the ceiling. They make me sick.

 

[Mr Liberty]

The GOP stock has been falling since Ryan came out with his budget. They would lose the rest of the independents if they did filibuster the ceiling.

Even the threat has many voters wondering what the Repubs would do if they were in charge. That memory will carry into 2012.

I say all the way until 2016. Go dems.

Imagine if republicans really were sitting in the oval office. Imagine it.

Oh dear god I am glad McCain picked Palin. Wheeew.

They will raise the ceiling. The Dem are in the oval office. This Great Recession is not over. Not by a long shot. This spending has done nothing except trade one problem for a bigger one. The downward spiral will continue and accelerate. This spending spree by both parties is already causing inflation and will soon become hyperinflation, which will cause higher unemployment and a deep and long lasting depression.
It would have been better to have done nothing.

 

[editec]

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Military, Social Security, and Medicare. It has to be done.

What we really need is another "Gang of 14" in the Senate, a bipartisan group who can iron out a plan to rein in entitlements, eliminate all the other crap our government blows money on, reform the tax code, and balance the budget.

Instead we have 100 children and the president demonizing each other and bickering back and forth hoping to score political points.

We cannot CUT social security.

Social SECURITY has 2.7 TRILLION dollars of our debt on its books.

Why can't we just renege on THAT debt?

Because then the rest of the 12.3 TRILLION in debt would likewise be reputited since those debts are the SAME KIND OF DEBT INSTRUMENT.

Do you NOT understand that?

Because if you don't you need to get it.

Social security is NOT like the military (which has NO money of its own and IS an EXPENSE).

Social is not an expense, it is a DEBT OWED by the FED to the workers of the United States of American who LENT IT $2.7 TRILLION over the last 40 years.

Now if you really WANT to balance the budget?

Repudiate ALL the $14 TRILLION the FED owes icnluding the 2.7 trillion of that amount owed to social secrity.

Are you down with screwing the richest people in the world JUST SO YOU CAN ALSO SCREW SOCIAL SECURITY?


You want to cut big numbers cut the big numbers of services that do NOT have money in the bank.

Like the homeland security police state aparatus or the bloated military of empire we've got.

You'd find your 1.7 TRILLION in those bloated budgets.

And sure you'd also have to FIRE about 2 million FEDERAL e4mployees, too.

But don't RIGHT WING CRANKS think they're all basically featherbed employees anyway?

Aren't they just like teachers? You know people you hate?

IOf not why not.

They are sucking off the teat of the FED more than teachers are.

 

[auditor0007]

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Military, Social Security, and Medicare. It has to be done.

What we really need is another "Gang of 14" in the Senate, a bipartisan group who can iron out a plan to rein in entitlements, eliminate all the other crap our government blows money on, reform the tax code, and balance the budget.

Instead we have 100 children and the president demonizing each other and bickering back and forth hoping to score political points.

We cannot CUT social security.

Social SECURITY has 2.7 TRILLION dollars of our debt on its books.

Why can't we just renege on THAT debt?

Because then the rest of the 12.3 TRILLION in debt would likewise be reputited since those debts are the SAME KIND OF DEBT INSTRUMENT.

Do you NOT understand that?

Because if you don't you need to get it.

Social security is NOT like the military (which has NO money of its own and IS an EXPENSE).

Social is not an expense, it is a DEBT OWED by the FED to the workers of the United States of American who LENT IT $2.7 TRILLION over the last 40 years.

Now if you really WANT to balance the budget?

Repudiate ALL the $14 TRILLION the FED owes icnluding the 2.7 trillion of that amount owed to social secrity.

Are you down with screwing the richest people in the world JUST SO YOU CAN ALSO SCREW SOCIAL SECURITY?


You want to cut big numbers cut the big numbers of services that do NOT have money in the bank.

Like the homeland security police state aparatus or the bloated military of empire we've got.

You'd find your 1.7 TRILLION in those bloated budgets.

And sure you'd also have to FIRE about 2 million FEDERAL e4mployees, too.

But don't RIGHT WING CRANKS think they're all basically featherbed employees anyway?

Aren't they just like teachers? You know people you hate?

IOf not why not.

They are sucking off the teat of the FED more than teachers are.

We have the lowest tax rates in 60 years. Most everyone is paying less in taxes than they ever have in their entire lives. But hey, we don't need to raise taxes just because we have massive deficits. In fact, we need to cut those extremely low rates even more. The simple fact that very few people here can do basic math is astonishing. I guess it does show how bad our education system has become.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So where are you going to cut 1.7 Trillion dollars?

Military, Social Security, and Medicare. It has to be done.

What we really need is another "Gang of 14" in the Senate, a bipartisan group who can iron out a plan to rein in entitlements, eliminate all the other crap our government blows money on, reform the tax code, and balance the budget.

Instead we have 100 children and the president demonizing each other and bickering back and forth hoping to score political points.

We cannot CUT social security.

Social SECURITY has 2.7 TRILLION dollars of our debt on its books.

Why can't we just renege on THAT debt?

Because then the rest of the 12.3 TRILLION in debt would likewise be reputited since those debts are the SAME KIND OF DEBT INSTRUMENT.

Do you NOT understand that?

Because if you don't you need to get it.

Social security is NOT like the military (which has NO money of its own and IS an EXPENSE).

Social is not an expense, it is a DEBT OWED by the FED to the workers of the United States of American who LENT IT $2.7 TRILLION over the last 40 years.

Now if you really WANT to balance the budget?

Repudiate ALL the $14 TRILLION the FED owes icnluding the 2.7 trillion of that amount owed to social secrity.

Are you down with screwing the richest people in the world JUST SO YOU CAN ALSO SCREW SOCIAL SECURITY?


You want to cut big numbers cut the big numbers of services that do NOT have money in the bank.

Like the homeland security police state aparatus or the bloated military of empire we've got.

You'd find your 1.7 TRILLION in those bloated budgets.

And sure you'd also have to FIRE about 2 million FEDERAL e4mployees, too.

But don't RIGHT WING CRANKS think they're all basically featherbed employees anyway?

Aren't they just like teachers? You know people you hate?

IOf not why not.

They are sucking off the teat of the FED more than teachers are.

I can never understand why people don't get this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can House Republicans who voted for Ryan's budget turn around and vote against raising the debt ceiling?

His budget requires a raising of the debt ceiling.

Oh, I forgot. They're Republicans.