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

[ghettopalmetto]

My favorite was Timothy Geithner's own example of why Obama can't afford to make cuts. He said that 1 in 8 Americans are eligible for food stamps and 4 in 10 is born to a family eligible for medicare. I swear to god I rewound it three times. He sees that as a need that must be met, but I see it as a runaway train thats way too inclusive. Those are very high percentages in a country with one of the highest GDP per capita in the world. Aren't any of those people able to get by on their own?

Yeah, fuck those people. They should just die in the streets. More tax cuts for the rich!

Makes you wonder where the hell our priorities are, doesn't it? We can afford these things--we just choose NOT to.

[mjs]

If Social Security and Medicare payments are processed as planned, then the other meaningful options are to 1) stop defense payments [[terrific for troop safety and morale, yes?) or 2) default on payments to creditors. You make the call which is preferable.

I clearly said I would pay all the bonds first and I would stop defense payments. With $14.3 trillion on my Visa, how in the hell can I take an interest rate bump for paying late? If I were Obama, I would do the best thing for troop safety and morale. Get us out of the world's shitholes as I emphatically and repeatedly promised during my campaign. We have absolutley no goals whatsoever and my military leadership hates me and my cabinet so bad that I had to fire my top general for his open insubordination. Ending the wars, like taking down tents in the next 48 hours, is the spot where I can take massive cuts with the least opposition. End the wars and holding the rest of the worlds hand and I can cut my bomb and bullets orders my shitloads.

Because the interest rate the federal government pays on its debts would be raised. Which means the Federal Reserve must boost interest rates. Which means Bailey Building & Loan has to raise its rates. That's why.

The Fed has proven time and time again that they don't have to do shit. They don't need approval for bank mergers. They don't need to reveal where our bailout money goes. They don't need to explain why banks need it. They don't need to tell us who is still doing a crappy job. They can add anyone they want to FDIC insured at any second. They can crush anyone that doesn't want to take welfare bailout programs. They can nationalize at will with no say from Congress. They don't have to even follow the Constitution so they sure as hell aren't going to suddenly believe they have to justify why they lend banks money at rates lower than they borrow from them.

Cut Cap and Balance is a proposal put forth by those completely unsophisticated in economic analyses. You'll find out why it's a terrible idea when the next recession comes along, revenues fall, and unemployment increases.

According to the people that removed Glass-Stegal and thought that the average of below average risk bonds is above that of top bonds? The same people that thought housing prices will never rise less than 5% and can't balance the nations check book in good or bad times? The Bush budget, the Clinton budget, the Reagan budget. Its all bullshit. Congress passes spending legislation. Their all congressional budgets.

Its insane to believe that we have an infinite credit limit and that we can pay off infinite debt. If Dems want rainy day money for a recession, let them save some rainy day money for a recession by having a surplus in the good years. I know having a surplus is a the only concept more feared in DC than raising taxes, but the time has come that they need to act like adults with a family rather than teenagers with a job at taco bell.

[ghettopalmetto]

MJS, maybe this will put things into a bit of perspective for you, and help to calm your nerves.


Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph
[[includes projections for Obama through 2017)

What’s also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely.

The Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years.

We’re not raising the debt ceiling because of the new policies passed in the past two years. We’re raising the debt ceiling because of the accumulated effect of policies passed in recent decades, many of them under Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...id=sm_facebook

Numbers talk, bullshit walks.

[mjs]

Ghettopalmetto, did I say fuck them? None of them deserve the money? I said that there's no way in hell that they all need the money.

[ghettopalmetto]

Ghettopalmetto, did I say fuck them? None of them deserve the money? I said that there's no way in hell that they all need the money.

The billionaires who had their tax cuts extended? I agree.

[mjs]

I say Obama's short-term major expenses are the problem. The stimulus is as useless in our day as it was in FDRs. Everybody is deleveraging. Organizations have $4 trillion they are sitting on. You think making it $5 trillion will convince them to spend it? You think a guy under water with a year worth of credit card debt is going to buy a new suit because of some government handout? The government was obviously very good at breaking the system, but they can't fix it no matter how hard they try. You don't send a puppy to clean up its own mess.

Yes, I agree, Medicare can not support itself. A statitician could have told you that 40 years ago and a guy with a PoliSci degree would have told you that the mathametician can't understand the complexity of government math. Now, the statitican is telling you that payouts have to be cut to match the revenue stream and you are still listening to the guy with the PoliSci degree?

I also agree that the debts are from years of idiotic policies on both sides as was the policies that lead to this little depression. What does that have to do with the solution? Since we don't have a time machine, the cuts need to be made regardless of fault.

You can't be implying that government isn't bigger than it was ten years ago. That it doesn't have its grubby little incompetent fingers into more things than it did ten years ago. Are you? As big brohter gets bigger, he needs more money. His allowance was enough ten years ago.

[mjs]

ghettopalmetto, I was against the Bush tax cuts when they first happened because they augmented the debt. I think the idea that high taxes kills small business is as idiotic as the idea that handouts can fix an economy. If I can pay a guy less than I can make from his working for me, I'm going to hire him regardless of how much of the profit goes to uncle sam. Even a few bucks profit is better than the no profit I get from not hiring him. Government has no role in economics. Their role to society is completely different.

I was emphatically against the renewal of the Bush tax cuts. More tax cuts for further spending was an unholy alliance using both sides idiotic ideas that have nothing to do with their obligations to society. The idea was like deficit spending on steriods. If you want to spend more on unemployment, ask the employed to contribute more.

According to Thomas Paine in Rights of Man, that is the role of government, to align individual needs and desires with group needs and desires. The governed is supposed to support taxes to the level that the governed believe the services are worth, not one cent more. Once its more, there's no point to being governed so the government, the agreement between the governed, should be dissolved. If you could take every government program to a millage vote where you said the specific cost for the specific program and that turning it down means that much less in taxes, the people would find a whole hell of alot more than $400 billion a year in cuts. We're in debt because Americans don't believe the service the US governemnt provides is worth the amount the government alots to it. If it were otherwise, they would have accepted the tax increases back when the programs were approved.

[douglasm]

I'm really getting tired of the whole thing. All I know for certain is that if the US goes into default, and I don't get my social security check, my morgage doesn't get paid.

Someone somewhere in both parties have to have enough common sense to know that at this point, anything that clears the House will not clear the Senate, and vice versa. These folks are NOT statesmen, they're all idiots. Statesmen will sit down and come to a compromise that will probably please no one, but get the job done. Idiots just lob charges back and forth at each other.

[oladub]

I'm really getting tired of the whole thing. All I know for certain is that if the US goes into default, and I don't get my social security check, my morgage doesn't get paid.

More money is brought in with the Social Security tax than is paid out in benefits. The only reason for you to worry is that politicians of both parties spend some of the Social Security tax revenue on non-related things. We can bet that Congress will continue to be paid and we will keep bombing Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan if no agreement is reached. The question about which bills get paid has to do with the priorities of the President and Congress. The President is fear mongering, I hope, by suggesting that the first thing his Treasury Department would cut is your Social Security check.

Longer term, the phony government cost of living index is not keeping up with inflation and an even more corrupt version of the CPI is being suggested as a budget item. They will erode the spending power of SS and federal pension recipients. Like raising the heat on the frogs in the pot, redefining the CPI will not raise fears. I suggest that this latter threat to Social Security is a more probable outcome.

[firstandten]

I'm convinced a deal will be made. This is the nature of negotiations. Its about taking it down to the wire and see who blinks first.

The politics involved in this is a sight to behold. The freshmen tea party Repubs congressfolks are not only holding the nation hostage they are holding Boehner hostage as well.

I think he wants the balanced compromise. The tea partiers want the CCB.

The level of partsianship is at an all time high. I now understand why W Bush always wanted to keep a war going on. Its easlier to get your agenda thru as a war time president. That is one of the few areas where Congress will come together.

Boehner really made a leap when he said the CCB passed the house on a bi-partisan basis with 5 dems voting for it. I guess now if you can get 1 vote from the other party you can call it bi-partisan

[lit joe]

G.M. & Chrysler can't strike so sayet Obama. New hires half wages. But Ford can strike because they didn't take Obama bucks, putting them at a big disadvantage. Welcome to libby world. The most bizzareo place honestly you can't make this crap up.

[firstandten]

EDITORIAL COMMENT from the NY Times after the speech


House Republicans have lost sight of the country’s welfare. It’s hard to conclude anything else from their latest actions, including the House speaker’s dismissal of President Obama’s plea for compromise Monday night. They have largely succeeded in their campaign to ransom America’s economy for the biggest spending cuts in a generation. They have warped an exercise in paying off current debt into an argument about future spending. Yet, when they win another concession, they walk away.

This increasingly reckless game has pushed the nation to the brink of ruinous default. The Republicans have dimmed the futures of millions of jobless Americans, whose hopes for work grow more out of reach as government job programs are cut and interest rates begin to rise. They have made the federal government a laughingstock around the globe.

In a scathing prime-time television address Monday night, President Obama stepped off the sidelines to tell Americans the House Republicans were threatening a “deep economic crisis” that could send interest rates skyrocketing and hold up Social Security and veterans’ checks. By insisting on a single-minded approach and refusing to negotiate, he said, Republicans were violating the country’s founding principle of compromise.

“How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?” he said, invoking Ronald Reagan’s effort to make everyone pay a fair share and pointing out that his immediate predecessors had to ask for debt-ceiling increases under rules invented by Congress. He urged viewers to demand compromise. “The entire world is watching,” he said.

Mr. Obama denounced House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal to make cuts only, now, and raise the debt ceiling briefly, but he embraced the proposal made over the weekend by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, which gave Republicans virtually everything they said they wanted when they ignited this artificial crisis: $2.7 trillion from government spending over the next decade, with no revenue increases. It is, in fact, an awful plan, which cuts spending far too deeply at a time when the government should be summoning all its resources to solve the real economic problem of unemployment. It asks for absolutely no sacrifice from those who have prospered immensely as economic inequality has grown.

Mr. Reid’s proposal does at least protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And about half of its savings comes from the winding down of two wars, which naturally has drawn Republican opposition. [[Though Republicans counted the same savings in their budgets.)
Mr. Boehner will not accept this as the last-ditch surrender that it is. The speaker, who followed Mr. Obama on TV with about five minutes of hoary talking points clearly written before the president spoke, is insisting on a plan that raises the debt ceiling until early next year and demands another vote on a balanced-budget amendment, rejected by the Senate last week. The result would be to stage this same debate over again in an election year. Never mind that this would almost certainly result in an immediate downgrade of the government’s credit.

We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be “offended” by this display and that they “may have voted for divided government but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.” It’s hard not to conclude now that dysfunction is the Republicans’ goal — even if the cost is unthinkable"

The compromise that Obama wants is so distasteful to his base that Bernie Sanders is now calling for Obama to have a primary challenge.

Compromise is not on the menu for the Repubs, Crashing the economy so they can take back the WH is. We had such a good time under W I guess they feel we should go for another round.

[ghettopalmetto]

Boehner really made a leap when he said the CCB passed the house on a bi-partisan basis with 5 dems voting for it. I guess now if you can get 1 vote from the other party you can call it bi-partisan

Oh, the House vote on CCB was bipartisan alright:

240 yeas [[including 5 Democrats)
190 nays [[including 9 Republicans)

The opposition was more bipartisan than the support.

[firstandten]

G.M. & Chrysler can't strike so sayet Obama. New hires half wages. But Ford can strike because they didn't take Obama bucks, putting them at a big disadvantage. Welcome to libby world. The most bizzareo place honestly you can't make this crap up.

I think you just did

[Detroitej72]

G.M. & Chrysler can't strike so sayet Obama. New hires half wages. But Ford can strike because they didn't take Obama bucks, putting them at a big disadvantage. Welcome to libby world. The most bizzareo place honestly you can't make this crap up.

If you think Obama is a liberal, I have a bridge to sell you.

[lit joe]

If you think Obama is a liberal, I have a bridge to sell you.

A penny for your thoughts on what he is?

[lit joe]

I think you just did

Check the facts,

[Papasito]

Why is Uncle Sam cutting Grandma & Grandpa's Social Security?
Why are they cutting off unemployment when there are no jobs?
Why can't they afford domestic programs in the homeland?

Look no further than

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s1296.pdf

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s1297.pdf

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s1298.pdf

We have the whole world on our back, we can't afford to take care of ourselves.
Politicians are saying the problem is those "evil rich" and those "dirty greedy corporations that pay no taxes".. They play class warfare and try to divide us by inciting bickering and fueding amongst ourselves so we don't see the real problems...

http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/20...o-federal-tax/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/...49465620080812

.. when in reality we can't afford to take care of our own because we are taking care of everyone else!

Santa Claus has gone broke. It's time to stop handing out presents when the elves have no jobs and can't afford to eat.

[Papasito]

We agreed strongly when Mr. Obama said Americans should be “offended” by this display and that they “may have voted for divided government but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.” It’s hard not to conclude now that dysfunction is the Republicans’ goal — even if the cost is unthinkable"

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-14/o...?_s=PM:OPINION

With his budget speech Wednesday President Obama had an opportunity to reach across the political aisle. He could have proposed a budget plan that focused on the long run, combined needed structural changes to the Big Three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- with the tax increases he wants.
He could have endorsed the proposals of his Fiscal Commission co-chairs, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson. Their proposal would reform these entitlements, capping government spending and eventually bringing it down to 21% of GDP.

It's pretty sad when the libs at CNN "got it" way back in April

[ghettopalmetto]

Why are they cutting off unemployment when there are no jobs?
Why can't they afford domestic programs in the homeland?

Because the Republican-controlled House has managed to change the conversation from one of economic recovery to one of deficit reduction. That's why.

The American people are smarter, as shown in recent polls that unemployment is a much larger concern than the budget deficit.

I'll say it again: Welcome to 1937.

[douglasm]

As a sidelight, any default would effect the small town where I'm a city councilman. We're about to go into the bond market to float a $2m issue to help pay for a sewer treatment plant. If the federal government defaults and interest rates go up, that's gonna hurt. With a population of about 900, 30% under the poverty level, any increase in interest rates could kill the project all together.

At this point, I really don't care how they fix the problem. Just fix it.

[mjs]

Come on with some of the claims. They're meant to be good soundbites, but can't pass the rule of ten. Rule of ten being what ten ten year olds would say.

Claim- If the budget doesn't pass, interest rates will skyrocket. Its a downgrade from perfect to damn near perfect. Its like saying going from a 740 score to a 720 score will skyrocket your mortgage payments. There's a difference between a small bump and skyrocketing. Its been talked about so much that when it happens, and it will happen in the next 60 days, its already going to be built into the market and bonds will only move moderately as some funds will have to rebalance. Its why the rating agencies keep warning. To brace the market against shock.

Large investors aren't going to take the rating as the end all, be all. It is possible for them to determine risk on their own. And their personal evaluation won't change overnight on the say so of rating agencies that have gotten so many bond calls so wrong so many times. If I can get a better return tomorrow without increased risk, tell me where I can buy. Risk of getting treasuries isn't going to go up a week from now.

Claim- Voters didn't want dysfunctional government. Have you been watching these idiots up to this point? Have you ever seen an opinion poll on Congress? Dysfunctional government has been here for quite a while and the voters know it. Spending 140% of your income is pretty disfunctional. Thinking a 10% spending cut or 3% earning increase is going to fix it is dysfunctional.

Claim- Social Security checks won't go out. The money is there and there is absolutely no way or no reason to to not send them. I hope Obama comes through on his claim of vetoing the Republican plan so we can all watch the checks go out and see the rates hold. Then, once the fear mongering has lost its affect, we can start talking about makng some real changes.

[firstandten]

mjs- I hear you on some of those points, most of it is posturing for the media and the people. Thats how high stakes negotiations generally go. Claims are made, goal posts get moved etc.

What I do think is a problem is that our gov't is dysfunctional, more so that in the past. The reasons voters dealt with it is because until recently the middle class wasn't being thrown into poverty and those working poor weren't being thrown into homeless shelters. What is dysfunctional are the supply side economic policies that finally caused the economy to melt down in 08. The gov't spending kept the economy afloat until the private sector could begin to come back.

I know this sounds counterintuitive to many people but gov is not run like ones personal checkbook. During times of recession gov't spending is used to stabilize the economy. Now eventually the debt must start to be addressed.

Sometimes I think the Repubs having run the economy into the ditch should have been made to get us out of it. Trust me they would be doing the same things Obama is trying to do now

[firstandten]

Check the facts,

Why me ? You're the one that made the outrageous claims ! Back them up !

[lit joe]

Why me ? You're the one that made the outrageous claims ! Back them up !

Check out Ford seeks no strike pledge from uaw like gm chrysler have.on www.bloombreg.com/apps. Thats what obama sayet.