Obama Pushes U.S. Debt Deal, Spurns Republican Plan

[Zacha341]

Lots of partisan jockeying [[and run-away spending on both sides that got us here) with elections top of mind. Yet the can or our dept cannot be 'kicked' any further down the road....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ding-cuts.html

"Obama says the magnitude of cuts Republicans are proposing will be harmful and should be offset by elimination of many tax exemptions to deliver revenue for a deficit-cutting plan.

“I have not seen a credible plan -- having gone through the numbers -- that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” Obama said. “And the notion that we would be doing that, and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us or from closing corporate loopholes -- that doesn’t seem like a serious plan to me.” "

[oladub]

Debt Vote Flashback: Every Single Dem Voted Against Raising the Debt in 2006 including Senator Obama. He sounded like a pretty reasonable guy at the time so a lot of people voted for him.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” “Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” -Senator Obama March 16, 2006.

His tune has changed though as did that of the Republicans who in 2006 voted in support of Bush raising the debt ceiling. Now that he has to pay for his new war on Libya, retrofitting Mexican trucks with better brakes, supplying guns that wound up in the hands of drug smugglers, hiring 15,000 additional IRS agents, and other new programs including the proposed amnesty, President Obama finds it necessary to terrorize Grandma and Grandpa by threatening to pull the plug on their Social Security. The President even recently complained, "I Would Rather be Talking About Stuff That Everyone Welcomes, Like New Programs or the NFL Season Getting Resolved." -President Obama July 11, 2011

Senator Obama defined President Obama. Re-read the first quote. "Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership . Americans deserve better." It sure does!

[Danny]

By August 2nd The U.S. Gov't defualt on its bills and all our benefits and ecomony will grind a halt. People will NEVER trust the government again. Wait until next election those who voted against raising the debt ceiling will NEVER recieve a next term.

[Big Dog]

Goodbye GOP.

[Papasito]

Goodbye GOP.

so, it's

Bail out the Government because it's oversized and promises more than it can afford, without fixing the problem that got it there in the first place, resulting in the Dollar collapsing and food potentially doubling in price...

or

Don't bail out the Government, Grandma won't get her Social Security and Hector won't get his free health care without ever paying a dime into the system. Don't forget the affordable housing, food stamps, welfare and public assistance going millions upon millions of Americans of all races, ages and sexes, citizen and non-citizen.


America loses either way!


Look, I know there are Americans that are truly suffering and need help, but there are far too many abusing the system. I know a girl who just got out of an abused women's shelter, and she said about 70% of the women in there were abusing the system for "fresh start" checks of $1500.00 and a free place to live with 3 hot meals a day. These are sad, sad days.

[ghettopalmetto]

so, it's

Bail out the Government because it's oversized and promises more than it can afford, without fixing the problem that got it there in the first place, resulting in the Dollar collapsing and food potentially doubling in price...
.

You're right. We should have never cut taxes on millionaires when we had a budget surplus in 2001. We'd be a lot more stable right now if we hadn't.

[Papasito]

no we wouldn't.
no matter what they charge in taxes, they would still spend more then they take in.

if the left really feels this way [[make the rich pay$$$), how about cutting the special exemptions out for companies who support them when it comes to Obamacare and tax loopholes? How about making big lefty supporters like Microsoft and GE and Westinghouse and others pay thier fair share?

If there's another big bailout, the money will go to political supporters to do favors in exchange for votes to buy the next election. That's what happened in the last bailout, and unemployment was not fixed, still isn't fixed. Bank exec's got big bonuses and "green" companies got tons of cash. But still there's no jobs. Still there's no prosperity. Still we don't have our economy back.

Trust me, I think Republicans aren't doing thier job either. They have majority in Congress and aren't passing anything they were whining about when they were campaigning. They got in and sat on thier fat asses.

America is going the way of Greece. Our currency is going the way of Zimbabwe.
Nothing is being fixed.

[Zacha341]

Exactly, you're seeing thru the partisan blinders! Political games afoot, meanwhile the core problem and 'combined' solution requirement is not being applied!!!

Bottom line: Even with the rich paying more IT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH... though it IS enough to satisfy partisan divides. Meanwhile the out of control spending is not addressed.

President Obama does not want to be the president to raise taxes with election pending. Let the repubs carry that water...

Partisan dueling here [[with both parties ignoring the issue for sake of getting something over the other or blame making.

Right vs. left rubric in full expression here.

no we wouldn't.
no matter what they charge in taxes, they would still spend more then they take in.

if the left really feels this way [[make the rich pay$$$), how about cutting the special exemptions out for companies who support them when it comes to Obamacare and tax loopholes? How about making big lefty supporters like Microsoft and GE and Westinghouse and others pay thier fair share?

If there's another big bailout, the money will go to political supporters to do favors in exchange for votes to buy the next election. That's what happened in the last bailout, and unemployment was not fixed, still isn't fixed. Bank exec's got big bonuses and "green" companies got tons of cash. But still there's no jobs. Still there's no prosperity. Still we don't have our economy back.

Trust me, I think Republicans aren't doing thier job either. They have majority in Congress and aren't passing anything they were whining about when they were campaigning. They got in and sat on thier fat asses.

America is going the way of Greece. Our currency is going the way of Zimbabwe.
Nothing is being fixed.

[ghettopalmetto]

President Obama does not want to be the president to raise taxes with election pending. Let the repubs carry that water...

Uh, what??? Were you ALIVE in December?

[Zacha341]

Go kick a brick! I am talking about what is pending right now.....

Uh, what??? Were you ALIVE in December?

[firstandten]

I believe Thom Hartman hits it on the head with this analysis

"Republicans could care less about the debt ceiling - the only clock they care about is the one that's ticking away to the 2012 elections.
Republicans have made a calculated decision that if Democrats don’t agree to privatize Medicare, or other massive cuts - then they're going to go ahead and let our nation default on our debt - because they believe that in the end it will be President Obama who will be blamed in 2012 by the voters for the economic disaster."

Or blamed by his base for gutting the social safety net if he gives in.

Or blamed for raising taxes, even though the Repubs put it in terms of raising taxes period, not raising taxes on the wealthest of us which is actually what needs to happen.

"The truth is…the Republicans are right - President Obama IS the guy who will likely take the hit if our nation defaults - he’ll become the next Herbert Hoover - and Democrats might be banished from politics for a generation if that happens.
And that’s the exact endgame that Republicans are trying for with their scorched earth strategy - they'll do anything to win back the White House, even if it means another Great Depression for the rest of us."

Thats why politics can be sickening.

But the president is not without options

"Treasury Secretary Timmy Geithner has the sole authority to determine how our debt obligations are met by deciding which bills to pay and when to pay them, of course, doing it on behalf of the president.
In fact - he’s already doing this - we hit the debt ceiling and passed our debt ceiling back on May 17th and Geithner is now borrowing from federal pension funds to keep our government running.
So…if Republicans REALLY want to play hardball - the President can direct Tim Geithner to play hardball right back at them.
Instead of cannibalizing federal pension funds - he could cut federal assistance to states whose Republican Senators and Congressmen are blocking a debt limit increase.
The president could basically say, “Hey John Boehner - you don’t want to raise the debt ceiling - that’s fine. But kiss all that federal money Ohio gets every day goodbye…we’re using that money to pay off our debt”.

"Or…“Hey Paul Ryan - I know Wisconsin is struggling financially right now - but it’s about to get a whole lot worse because we’re blocking all federal grants to the state…we need to pay off our debt somehow”.
It’s a pretty simple choice really - do we use existing federal funds to finance John Boehner’s corporate pet project of an alternative F-35 jet engine - or do we use the funds to pay off our debt and avoid a global meltdown?"

This is the essence of the mexican standoff we are seeing. This would be funny if so many peoples lives weren't being affected by this.

[Papasito]

it's ok to drop a billion dollars worth of bombs on huts and caves, it's ok to let countries abuse free trade agreements, it's ok to send truckloads of arms to Mexican thugs, it's ok to send billions to other countries in unappreciated aid, but it's always the "other party's fault" when the Government can't send out checks to both those in need and to those who are working the system in America.....

It's not that the Government doesn't have enough money,
the problem is that the Government wastes too much money on stupid $hiT.

[mjs]

Lots of partisan jockeying [[and run-away spending on both sides that got us here) with elections top of mind. Yet the can or our dept cannot be 'kicked' any further down the road....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...ding-cuts.html

"Obama says the magnitude of cuts Republicans are proposing will be harmful and should be offset by elimination of many tax exemptions to deliver revenue for a deficit-cutting plan.

“I have not seen a credible plan -- having gone through the numbers -- that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks,” Obama said. “And the notion that we would be doing that, and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us or from closing corporate loopholes -- that doesn’t seem like a serious plan to me.” "

Mind blowing that he can't see a way to find the cuts "without really hurting ordinary folks". America has done fantastic in the past while spending substantially less by every measurement. $2.4 trillion over 10 years is just $240 billion a year. His banker friends have seen times where that much government money wasn't even enough to get them through the month. He can make zero cuts this year and do the rest in the next nine or even cut no spending for two years and carry the rest in the next eight. These arguments that we can't commit to PLANS to cut spending during a recession and we can't exist at levels we have existed at are completely absurd. Simply pick a year where we spent less and the differences are the places to cut. $240 billion a year is a drop compared to what we could afford if we made the people of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel, Germany, France, Italy, and Britian defend themselves.

I very much support closing loopholes and ending the Bush tax cuts so we can get the debt under $14 trillion, but its absurd to imply that new taxes are needed to hold the line at $14 trillion because we can't find things to cut.

[ghettopalmetto]

I very much support closing loopholes and ending the Bush tax cuts so we can get the debt under $14 trillion, but its absurd to imply that new taxes are needed to hold the line at $14 trillion because we can't find things to cut.

See my response to your post on the David Stockman thread. Which parts do you propose to cut? Choose from:

1. Defense
2. Social Security
3. Medicare/Medicaid
4. Interest on the debt

Theoretically, there is a "5. Everything Else" category, but even if you eliminate "everything else" entirely, you still have a deficit based on the cost of the above 4 items compared to current revenues.

I'm still baffled to know why the GOP thinks we just HAVE to cut spending right now. The problem isn't the deficit--the problem is that our economy isn't growing. The deficit is just the symptom of a shrinking/stagnant economy. Cutting spending now is like treating a hemophilic with a gunshot wound by amputating the wounded limb--it's completely counterintuitive. Cutting spending is going to make things DRASTICALLY worse within the next year. Welcome to 1937-38.

Of course, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Patrick]

Dems use Reagan against GOP on debt ceiling

[Zacha341]

I hear you but I think the dems and Obama are functioning similarly. All eyes on 2012, meanwhile the deficit continues to mount. This in part speaks to the presidents inflexibility with regards to finding a solution as well, outside of taxing the rich which is not enough as I've stated before....

I believe Thom Hartman hits it on the head with this analysis

"Republicans could care less about the debt ceiling - the only clock they care about is the one that's ticking away to the 2012 elections...

[ghettopalmetto]

I hear you but I think the dems and Obama are functioning similarly. All eyes on 2012, meanwhile the deficit continues to mount. This in part speaks to the presidents inflexibility with regards to finding a solution as well, outside of taxing the rich which is not enough as I've stated before....

Well, let's just agree that the President would be stupid to completely ignore 2012.

Restoring previous tax rates on the wealthy MUST be a part of any deficit-reduction strategy, though. The math doesn't work otherwise.

I'm not convinced that the deficit itself is the problem. The problem [[which the GOP won't tell you) is that the GDP isn't growing. The easiest way to cut spending as a percentage of GDP is to grow the economy.

[Zacha341]

Why was this 'pending' debt ceiling not considered when president Obama was spending and spending? Sure the repubs had their turn at bat, but Obama has increased our deficit considerably and now as the election comes back up he has to damage control that before his constituents... "Our turn" politics in part is why were are here...

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211...s-bush-on-debt

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt

From the article....

...Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama's first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama's first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama's deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

[Zacha341]

Yep, and he has to bull-horn the 'kick the rich' spiel so that his supporters in part cannot hear the other facts about over the den of noise that is preferable! Blaming it all on the rich [[a difintion of such is as mutable as those who play that card)... Those of us who are on the bottom will only be soothed so long with this rhetoric...

Mind you some of the democratic hyper-rich [[what a concept!) and bankers will be effected as well - as the legs of the chair are sawed off. But perhaps they'll take their medicine quietly and obey for sake of the party. Yep, cut the spending asap in the areas you mention, including the white house staff and other glitz and subsidies which are higher than normal, but that could just be GOP talking points....

Mind blowing that he can't see a way to find the cuts "without really hurting ordinary folks". America has done fantastic in the past while spending substantially less by every measurement. $2.4 trillion over 10 years is just $240 billion a year. His banker friends have seen times where that much government money wasn't even enough to get them through the month. He can make zero cuts this year and do the rest in the next nine or even cut no spending for two years and carry the rest in the next eight. These arguments that we can't commit to PLANS to cut spending during a recession and we can't exist at levels we have existed at are completely absurd. Simply pick a year where we spent less and the differences are the places to cut. $240 billion a year is a drop compared to what we could afford if we made the people of Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Israel, Germany, France, Italy, and Britian defend themselves.

I very much support closing loopholes and ending the Bush tax cuts so we can get the debt under $14 trillion, but its absurd to imply that new taxes are needed to hold the line at $14 trillion because we can't find things to cut.

[ghettopalmetto]

Yep, and he has to bull-horn the 'kick the rich' spiel so that his supporters in part cannot hear the other facts about over the den of noise that is preferable! Blaming it all on the rich [[a difintion of such is as mutable as those who play that card)... Those of us who are on the bottom will only be soothed so long with this rhetoric...

No one is *blaming* anything on the rich. But if it comes down to a choice between cutting Social Security benefits and raising taxes on the wealthy, I'll favor the latter 100% of the time.

Personally, I have no desire to fulfill the GOP political agenda on the backs of the poor and needy while the wealthiest 2% continue to live high off the hog.

[Zacha341]

Nor do I have a desire to fulfill the dem ideological and political agenda on those backs either. And IMO both [[dems and repubs) are playing us....

Personally, I have no desire to fulfill the GOP political agenda on the backs of the poor and needy while the wealthiest 2% continue to live high off the hog.

[firstandten]

Yep, and he has to bull-horn the 'kick the rich' spiel so that his supporters in part cannot hear the other facts about over the den of noise that is preferable! Blaming it all on the rich [[a difintion of such is as mutable as those who play that card)... Those of us who are on the bottom will only be soothed so long with this rhetoric...

Mind you some of the democratic hyper-rich [[what a concept!) and bankers will be effected as well - as the legs of the chair are sawed off. But perhaps they'll take their medicine quietly and obey for sake of the party. Yep, cut the spending asap in the areas you mention, including the white house staff and other glitz and subsidies which are higher than normal, but that could just be GOP talking points....

Why do you constantly say this. It is not about sticking it to the rich, its about having them pay there fair share of taxes be they Dems or Repubs or Independents... it doesn't matter !

The last great Repub General Ike had it about right when he had the marginal tax rate at 90%

[firstandten]

I hear you but I think the dems and Obama are functioning similarly. All eyes on 2012, meanwhile the deficit continues to mount. This in part speaks to the presidents inflexibility with regards to finding a solution as well, outside of taxing the rich which is not enough as I've stated before....

I don't think its about being inflexible, its more about the Repubs trying to checkmate the Pres into making unacceptable budget cuts, its not about trying to jointly find solutions, and finding compromise where everyone gets a little, loses a little etc. Its a political strategy pure and simple, both parties do it, however we are still in a tough time in this economy, and we could still go into a depression, but the Repubs being the true believers, don't really care as long as the WH is in the win column for 2012.

Just like its takes two to tango, its takes two to make a compromise

Funny thing I still don't think they will win but there aren't going down without a fight

[firstandten]

I'm not convinced that the deficit itself is the problem. The problem [[which the GOP won't tell you) is that the GDP isn't growing. The easiest way to cut spending as a percentage of GDP is to grow the economy.

And to do that you must stimulate demand. Demand creates jobs not tax cuts.

And right wing Repub governors whose first move once getting into office is to cut public and government employees jobs doesn't help either.

No wonder the countries monthly unemployment numbers look so crappy

[ghettopalmetto]

Yep, and he has to bull-horn the 'kick the rich' spiel so that his supporters in part cannot hear the other facts about over the den of noise that is preferable!

Yes, the rich are certainly being kicked. In 2007, the effective tax rate of the top 400 earners in the nation was 16.6%. For reference, that's the SAME EXACT EFFECTIVE RATE that I paid. The difference is that I earn millions of dollars a year less, and thus I don't benefit from our stable government and well-regulated economy to nearly the same extent.

The top 400 households paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995. This decline works out to a tax cut of $46 million per filer in 2007, or a total of $18 billion in tax cuts for these households per year.

To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million in 1992 [[in 2007 dollars) and $139 million in 2007.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3090

Oh, the poor rich. How much pity I feel for them! Their incomes only more-than tripled in 12 years, and their taxes got cut in half. Sob! We must cut Social Security, education, and investments in infrastructure so these poor, destitute folks can eat, for God's sake!

But I guess we should feel so thankful for all those jobs that $18 billion per year tax cut has created, right?