In the interest of drumming up a little conversation...

Last night both the President and Speaker of the House spoke about the "debt crises."

My question for you folks that heard them is this: Which person seems the most reasonable? Which had the more compelling argument?

I tried very hard to be open to the arguments of both sides, but I just found Obama's arguments to be so much more compelling. It made no sense to me that Boehner's speech kept saying that Obama was not willing to address the issue of spending, when just before Boehner we listened to Obama suggest (again) a plan including 4 trillion in cuts over 10 years, which included concessions from the Democrats on holy grail issues such as cuts to entitlement programs.

At this point, I hope Obama stays strong. His proposal is reasonable and includes things both parties don't want. It's a compromise. It's a balance. If we default on our debt and Obama holds strong, I will put the blame for this squarely on the Republican party's shoulders.

I didn't listen to either of them. Both parties are so full of crap that it makes me sick.

What neither are telling the people is that the current federal budget has nearly 60% of spending in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other Health Care (pre-ObamaCare 2010 spending) and those percentages are only scheduled to go up. Defense is 25% (and should be cut too). Using the current CBO projections Health Care will be the largest percentage spending item in 2013 (HC 24%, Defense 23%), and HC spending will continue to eat up more and more of our federal spending.

Also, as inflation continues to increase, we will start seeing higher interest rates and the amount we pay on the interest for the debt will increase dramatically (it is currently 6% of federal spending and projected to grow as a percentage of total outlays every year)

Both parties are at fault for letting it get this bad. We really can't afford more debt. That is what this argument is about, raising the Federal Government's credit limit. The Government will not shut down if the debt limit is not increased, it will have to pay its bills with the money it has (starting with debt). The scare tactic of putting seniors and the military paychecks is just wrong.

IMO, at this time, the Federal Government should not raise taxes. The tax proposals that President Obama has suggested, like the private jet tax, are projected to be a drop in the bucket vs year-to-year spending. What will grow government "revenues" is for the economy to start growing and getting people back to work (and not relying on the government for assistance).

Frib, you and I were in agreement before that the Fed needs to close most of the corporate tax loopholes and lower the rate (to get at a real effective corporate tax rate). Those in Congress can champion that they "lowered the corporate tax rates". That would be something that I would support. Closing a large number of military bases overseas and bringing those soldiers and support personnel back home (where they will be contributing to our economy) would be something else I would support. then a 5-10% across the board cut in spending (this would be in addition to closing the overseas bases).

FYI: I use this site for my graphs, percentages and projections: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/bud ... US#usgs302 It seems to be using the correct data and I have not seen much of a bias.

It's sad that the biggest roadblock is the timing, and the only factor there that matters is the upcoming election.

Both parties are equally at fault, and Obama has done a shitty job of leading. There is literally no plan you could point to as coming from him.

Krby, raising taxes isn't even being considered right now, by anyone. It's not in the Reid or the Boehner plan.

This, but not so much because both parties are full of shit(even though they are). Rather because politics bores the shit out of me now. Never anything new or interesting, it's just one big soap opera drama with little real intellectual stimulation. For most people, it's one big collective mental fapfest.

I like Warren Buffet's comment:
Add the President to that as well.

I know he was kidding, but it would work.

I listened to both of the speeches, and in all honestly Obama's is trying to resolve this but GOP are just being mean. I felt the Speech by the Republicans was petty and stupid, made me actually angry that this has never been a issue in prior presidencies raising the debt limit and now all of a sudden its a huge deal.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Can you name all the issues this could be applied to?

Regan, Cliton and Bush all were approved for Multiple Debt Limit Increases, is what I am referring too.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

It was a formality at that point because in almost all of those cases, the president's party was also the party in power in Congress.

I like how all of the new Republicans are against raising taxes for any reason, but their hero, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes 11 times.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

The entire thing is just plain stupid. Doubly so because you know that on August 1 the Republicans are just gonna say, "lol, j/k bros!" and raise the ceiling anyway.

It's not a real debate at all, it's just the Republicans trying to milk an otherwise obscure issue for all they can.

Just a fact check.Reagan never had a friendly House. He did enjoy a Senate majority his first 6 years, but the most Republicans in the House during his administration were 192, one fewer than we have Democrats now.

Bush 1 never had a friendly House or Senate. Of all these administrations, he had the fewest members of his own party in Congress.

Under Clinton's administration, the Democrats lost both after just two years.

George W. Bush is the only one whose own party controlled Congress for the majority of his administration (6 years).

Van,
When Reagan agreed to raise taxes he was also promised two times the spending cuts (that he never got). Also, the tax increases help to bring about the mini-recession of 1982. It was when taxes were cut that the expansion from 1983 through the middle of Bush I began.

I shouldn't be surprised that you guys are thinking that this is just Republican grandstanding, but the Democrats (who are in charge of the Senate and the White House) do not have a real plan. They have talked but have not passed a budget in over two years. Even Pres. Obama's own people say that he does not have a written plan.

BOTH parties are playing politics with this. They BOTH are trying to say "look the other guy is trying to ruin the economy"

There are two problems. One is the amount of spending the government is doing (From George W. AND Obama) and the other is the reduction in number of tax payers. This is why I was, and continue, to scream that we needed to get America back to work before we started on these great social re-engineering projects (Obamacare, Cap and trade, etc). We are now faced with more people relying on a government check (welfare, unemployment, social security, etc) and fewer people contributing. The amount of spending that this and the previous administration have done has proven to be dangerous.

The reason why there has not been a rubber stamp approval to increasing the debt limit this time is the mid-term elections. The new members of Congress ran on a "It's the Spending, Stupid!" mantra and won. They were not going to come into Congress and their first major action would be to allow the government to continue more and more spending.

When Obama was in the Senate he voted against raising the debt limit. In his floor speech he said:


That was in March 20, 2006 when they were voting to raise the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Here it is in 2011 and they need to raise the debt ceiling over $14.3 trillion.

Except this has nothing to do with "allowing more and more spending." The money has already been spent.

What annoys the hell out of me is that both sides have now turned their party into a sports team....and they don't give a shit what happens just as long as their team wins.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Fun Link I found: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt (Thanks Arwin!)

I can agree its like sports, no matter what long as one side wins. I wish Gov Officials could take their personal beliefs, ego and such out of the equation and make a solid and smart decision for everyone.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

Those are almost all Bush policies that Democrats voted for.

So "Bush policies" is a misnomer. Almost all of them should be listed as "Bush policies with Democrat support" or "Bush policies with support of Democrat majority in House/Senate".

Heh, I've been complaining about that for years. But people said it was a dumb analogy the first time I said it!

The Reid and Boehner plans are very, very similar. Why would Reid promise to vote it down no matter what? Why would Obama pledge support for the Reid bill and promise to veto the Boehner bill, if they really are so alike, and he really does want to compromise?

link: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/27/ ... -boehners/

I agree its totally stupid, really.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

_________________

Oh I agree, and this is also precisely why the line of "But Obama has Democratic support in Congress!" was such nonsense. They(Red State Democrats in particular) vote time and time again conservatively, and then everyone is surprised when it's suggested that Congress might not support him on stuff like DADT, Repealing tax cuts, or closing Guantanamo. Surprise, surprise!

And frankly, I WISH I could say it was only the Red State Democrats, but like you said, it doesn't end with just a few. Many Democrats helped Bush, and they'd shoot down stuff now that seemed even remotely liberal or out of sync with mainstream American quasi-conservatism.

I hope you're right, and I think everyone is assuming this, but I'm really not sure. Will it take a 700 point dive in the market to convince them that not paying your Visa bill is a bad thing? At that point, it will be far too late. Frankly, it sorta already is too late unless we wipe out the debt ceiling altogether.

For about 3 days there, I was very excited and thought we might see some meaningful budget reform with the Gang of Six plan. Every time something like that has happened, we've had 5+ "good years".

The Democrats are filibustering THEIR OWN BILL in the Senate. Story


If the Debt limit is not raised it will not mean the end of the government, it will mean the end of borrowing to pay for what is owed. It would mean that the government has to pay what is owed to creditors then for running the government. If the bills to the creditors are not paid then that is a huge issue. That is when the full faith and credit of the US Government goes completely out the window.

Blah the Government should be ran like a Large Corporation! Give everyone in the USA a share. I don't know, never seen so much issue with this topic.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

MY TEAM IS THE FUCKING BEST YEAH!!! COMIN' TO SAVE THE MOTHA FUCKIN' DAY YEAH!

Sirs, you should purchase FatHead cutouts of Obama and Boehner with cumnets for reduced mess! Show your fan support! If you act now, you get a policy talking points dartboard free of charge; it's not like any of that shit matters anyway, amirite?

My favorite part is borrowing money from Russia, to pay aid to China.

Congrats, Republicans/Tea Party. A job well done. While I have no doubt you will spend the next few weeks endlessly repeating on air how this is all the fault of Obama and the democrats, the ACTUAL reason for the downgrade was pretty plainly spoken:

_________________

You're a moron. Selective quoting takes the day!

They also said this.

Perhaps you're just being willfully stupid about what compromise actually is. It's ok, I know you've had difficulty with it in the past. Compromise is what they were looking for. Spending cuts (which the democrats gave and god knows, given what wimps they are, would have given some more) and tax revenue (which the republicans screamed and threw a hissy fit about and wouldn't budge an inch on). Considering the absolutely shameful behavior of the Tea Party and Republican congress through this entire mess, and the total lack of any fucking balls on the part of the democrats, it's a wonder they even got as far as...oh wait. They didn't actually do their job. They handed it off to another party.

I can't wait to see how the republican/tea party vision for America "helps" us next. God help us all.

_________________

Just trying to get you to realize that the fault isn't one sided.

Entitlement reform AND new revenues are necessary. The GOP crowed that they did not get any new taxes out of the deal, and the Dems crowed they did not have to touch entitlements.

Blame is deserved *equally*. Perhaps now that we're headed towards a double-dip, you people will realize that spending money we don't have actually does have long term ramifications despite what Paul Krugman thinks.

The problem is that THERE ARE NO REAL CUTS IN THE COMPROMISE!!! They only agreed to cut the rate of growth. Both sides are to blame.

The problem is that there are more people working for the federal government than ever before. Government's are not profit centers, they just spend money. We MUST get more people working for the private sector and not depending on the government for a check. That is MAJOR PROBLEM #1. Fixing that problem will slow down government spending and increase government revenue WITHOUT CUTTING A DIME OR INCREASING TAXES A CENT.

It makes me ill that these blowhards on both sides are bitching and moaning about all the tough decisions and blah blah blah when they haven't done ANYTHING. S&P is right to lower the credit rating of the US.

Now those idiots have to adjust for higher interest rates on the amount of borrowing that we have to do to pay for this debt. Currently we 6% of federal spending is just to pay interest (more than double what the fed pays on education). By this time next year it will be over 10% and pushing 15% the year after (if current trends continue).

I saw this quote:
"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, & are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand." - Dave Ramsey

This chart is from the A Citizen’s Guide to the 2008 Financial Report of the U.S. Government from the GAO. Look carefully at the chart. You will see that total government revenues INCREASED after the "Bush Tax Cuts" of 2004!

The federal government's problem is not revenue it is SPENDING!

The S&P completely disagrees with you (as does just about every credible analyst I've listened to). They wanted to see both addressed. It's not an accident that part of their decision was based on the belief that republicans would be just as immovable on the bush tax cuts in 2012 as they are today.

Even the american people favor a balanced approach. The only person that honestly believes "tax breaks trickle down to the little people in the form of jobs" at this point are the blowhard republicans spewing it like a mantra.

Call me biased if you will, but I think democrats are far more willing to deal to get to the resolution of this problem *overall*. All through the height of this, the ONLY thing I will give republicans credit for is putting military spending on the table. That honestly surprised me. But their "No Tax" Religion (and it is a religion at this point) has gone beyond lunacy in my book.

NOTHING should be off the table.

_________________

[quote]The S&P completely disagrees with you (as does just about every credible analyst I've listened to). They wanted to see both addressed. It's not an accident that part of their decision was based on the belief that republicans would be just as immovable on the bush tax cuts in 2012 as they are today.[/qoute]They want to see increased spending to solve the debt problem.

How do you get into debt problems, Rugen?

Which part of what I said do you take exception to? It was spelled out pretty clearly in the report about why they dropped the credit rating. Anyone that doesn't think EVERY american is going to need to tighten their belt and pay off part of our pain is living in la-la land. And I do mean EVERY american. Spending cuts and tax revenues. Maybe when we get back to sane ground we can start talking about tax cuts again, but for people to be bitching about tax breaks at a time when we are paying the lowest taxes we have ever paid historically...is just fucking lunacy.

For every welfare queen you want to toss out in argument on one side about waste, I have a corporate entity "gaming the system" to match on the other side (Hello GE). Both need to be addressed. And unfortunately, they kicked the can far enough down the line that there's no quick and easy fix. It is all going to be painful.

Or to put it in simplistic Dave Ramsey terms: When you're that deep in debt, you go out and get a second job to increase your ability to pay it off as well as cut your spending to reasonable levels. Debt doesn't vanish just because you quit spending. That seems to be a detail people forget.

_________________

with the current status of the economy additional taxes would not increase government revenue.

As a "right now" solution no, but over the next 12 years it would help.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

What's sad is that S&P has said several times that - beyond the financial issues - part of their reason for the change was the way our political system is just a huge fucking circus now. But rather than take that as a wake up call, I'm sure our esteemed leaders will just use that to cast more blame on each other and just keep playing the same old game.

also not helping the current economic situation is the weak US Dollar. The QE that they did (printing more money) was to get more money in the system, but it devalued the money. This is helping to keep oil prices high. The next great catastrophe would be if the dollar is replaced as the world's currency. That would send us to Great Depression II and make the last few years seem like golden years. That would trigger an exponential increase in the cost of living and doing business.

Rugen, all along I have been promoting eliminating the corporate tax loopholes and some corporate tax reductions. The reductions would help the small companies that can't take advantage of the loopholes and the tax breaks would get more companies that are not currently paying corporate tax (see: GE) to pay. That would be a revenue increase and a tax cut! What a glorious concept.

That would be indeed a glorious concept, cept we have people in congress who act stupid as a whole instead of looking at the larger aspect.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

And something the republicans would never pass, all the while claiming it was to protect "jobs".

Also, an interesting side note on the credit downgrade:

_________________

Glad to hear smaller countries with small bureaucracies/budgets managed to successfully implement universal healthcare. Americans demand pretty much everything under the sun per whatever they're doing legally. Spill a hot cup of coffee on yourself? There's a government benefit for that, too. I don't see China on the list either, wonder why..

Of the benefits 300 million people expect, I'm sure we've got a few things the government offers our people in terms of things they feel they're automatically entitled to just for being American that we can boast about over those other triple A nations =)

I will remain with this opinion, the US government should not be providing universal health care. Assistance with poor families that can't otherwise get healthcare through state agencies, on a limited basis.

The American People have an entitlement problem. Everyone feels entitled to get something from the government. Too many people have their hand out expecting Uncle Sam to be the one providing money, jobs, healthcare, whatever. We have lost the perspective that each person is responsible for their own. Is it hard? Hell yes it is hard. This entitlement belief is adding to why kids don't learn in school.

The only thing the federal government MUST provide is protection from invaders. Most everything else in the US Constitution are things that the federal government can not do.

What a strange graph. Revenues will never increase but entitlement spending will suddenly have a tremendous spike?

Well, "suddenly spike" wasn't the best choice of words there, but you get what I mean.

Social Security and Medicare payouts are going to rise exponentially as more and more people retire and leave the workforce. That's one reason for the ever increasing payout graph.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Sure, but we can protect ourselves without a bloated MIC. Defense spending is often being done in the wrong areas, and we're spending on equipment, vehicles, and aircraft that are either overpriced, don't suit our needs, or often both. Regardless, at this point we need to cut the defense budget and focus on specific areas that need improvement.

I'm just tired of the Republicans whining about nothing but entitlements and Democrats whining about nothing but defense spending while completely ignoring the other. They're both a problem, and everything needs to see a big budget cut.

you are right about need to cut defense spending. We need to eliminate the hundreds of overseas bases that are not needed. For example we have over 300 military installations in GERMANY. We need to close a bulk of them and bring all those troops and support units home. That will have a two pronged benefit to the economy. One it is a cut in defense spending, and two it brings those troops home where they will spend their paychecks here not in other countries to benefit our economy.

damn. I need to run for Congress. I have a three point plan.

1) Rebuild our entire power grid. We need to get rid of 1950's technology and move to a more efficient power distribution. Also, we need to convert all of our coal power plants to 4th generation LWR Nuclear reactors. We also need to convert all the existing 1st and 2nd generation nuclear reactors to the new reactors. We must be a leader in this technology as these new reactors can provide clean energy without mining for any resource for nearly 300 years. We need to improve our energy grid because it loses nearly 20% of the electricity due to inefficiencies of the grid. These are huge projects. These will require a large amount of skilled laborers. We need to tap into the unemployed to train them how to work on and maintain these systems for now and the future. These will be good jobs.

2) corporate taxes (plan listed above) then eliminate the income tax and payroll tax to implement the fair tax.

3) cap all federal spending to 2008 levels until we have a budget surplus. Then pay down the dept to pre-GWB levels before ANY increases in federal spending can occur.

As a side plan I'd like to see implemented (but would never happen) would be indexing congress's pay to the median salary of their districts. If you want to see your congressional representative work to to get his/her constituents better lives, make their income comparable. Also, eliminate the minimum wage. There is no other thing that keeps low skilled or low experience people from working than an artificially high minimum wage.

How do you figure that this is the case?

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with it, but I certainly see where he's coming from. Fewer employers seeing a cost/return benefit from an artificially high wage, so there are fewer jobs available/companies willing to hire. There are plenty of people having trouble finding even minimum wage jobs at this point, and that makes sense given that an artificial wage would rear its head in more desperate times where - 1) Companies are tightening their budgets and 2) People are more easily content with something even less than minimum wage.

Raising the minimum wage just means the cost of living for people making minimum wage raises by the same or more.

_________________

what Venen and randy said

So predictable... the talking points for the Dems this week are that the S&P rating downgrade is because of the Tea Party.

Washington Times


When multiple party "leaders" use the same term, it is a distributed game plan.

But then there is Barney "there is no housing crisis" Frank who believes "the biggest reason the United States is seeing its credit downgraded is that it spends too much money being "the military policemen of the world."

But thinking about what Rep. Frank is saying and he is partly right. He just forgets that there is other run-away spending, along with defense spending, that needs to be controlled too.

Going back to the S&P reason for the downgrade,

This is the message that the media needs to lead with. They need to follow with this statement:


Translation: The US government has TOO MUCH DEBT. The government can not continue its reckless spending habits. With the credit rating decrease the federal government will now be paying more in interest on the debt. That will increase the 6% of total outlays for interest payments to 8-10% in the immediate future and even higher the longer this exists.

Moody's threatens:

I hope no one had any money this morning, because you don't now.

_________________

They're closing 22 bases in Germany by 2014. That's a start. Folks are already moving out of Campbell.