PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama scare tactics front and center


HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 01:41 PM
With all the bullshit the federal government spends money on, he would stiff the old folks before he would cut stupid programs, use unspent stimulus money, or risk pissing off the unions.

Hello Chicago!!!



(CBS News) — President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more “balanced approach,” which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.

Mr. Obama told Pelley “this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.”

petegz28
07-12-2011, 01:44 PM
I read this earlier. Classic fear mongering bullshit. Why do we always hear this and not "Congress won't be getting paid" or something like that?

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 01:45 PM
It is the truth. If we default no one knows what will actually happen.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:47 PM
Welcome, welcome, step right on up to the how the fuck do I cut $1.25 trillion out of federal spending on 25 days notice game. You too can be a contestant.

Ok, so here's the deal -- by early August if the deadlock continues, the federal government can't borrow another dime. Therefore it must live completely within its means. Since the federal government borrows about 40% of every dollar it spends, the name of the game is to immediately reduce spending by 35%.

Here's one way set of statistics. The next post will contain additional information. Play the game however you want.

But remember -- you need to cut $1.25 trillion of spending. Choose wisely.


Well, this is one year out of date, but I couldnt' quickly find a similar breakdown for 2011. It should be close enough for this purpose.

And these numbers were Obama's spending request for 2010, so it doesn't precisely accurately reflect exactly what was spent and where. But still, for this purpose, ought to be good enough.

35% of $3.55 trillion is $1.24 trillion. Cut that amount out of the spending below. Please be sure not to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Ok, go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:47 PM
If you prefer to be more precise, then Obama's 2011 budget is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

The breakdown is even made into much smaller buckets. Go there and work out $1.29 trillion of cuts (on a budget of $3.69 trillion at 35%). You can even opt to hide mandatory spending so you can just work on discretionary stuff.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:47 PM
The above two posts, of course, are cross-thread from

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=247019

blaise
07-12-2011, 01:47 PM
I heard rich people have been using social security checks to power their private jets. They just fill up a hopper with old folks money and zoom off to Miami and stuff.
Like, private jets.
And I can't even barely afford $100 a month for TV and unlimited texting.
And they got these private jets and fancy haircuts and cars that I want to drive, but I'm stuck driving a 2009 Expedition.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 01:48 PM
With all the bullshit the federal government spends money on, he would stiff the old folks before he would cut stupid programs, use unspent stimulus money, or risk pissing off the unions.

Hello Chicago!!!



(CBS News) — President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more “balanced approach,” which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.

Mr. Obama told Pelley “this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.”
Please provide a link to the source. Also for © requirements.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 01:49 PM
If we default on debt....we don't have to, if you pay the debt first....then its all scare tactics.

Dems assume we pay everything but obligation to debt first, then we pay out. How stupid.

With all the options available to stop and stop spending, he will screw old folks? If you buy this crap you are nuts.

FD
07-12-2011, 01:50 PM
Welcome, welcome, step right on up to the how the **** do I cut $1.25 trillion out of federal spending on 25 days notice game. You too can be a contestant.

Ok, so here's the deal -- by early August if the deadlock continues, the federal government can't borrow another dime. Therefore it must live completely within its means. Since the federal government borrows about 40% of every dollar it spends, the name of the game is to immediately reduce spending by 35%.

Here's one way set of statistics. The next post will contain additional information. Play the game however you want.

But remember -- you need to cut $1.25 trillion of spending. Choose wisely.


Well, this is one year out of date, but I couldnt' quickly find a similar breakdown for 2011. It should be close enough for this purpose.

And these numbers were Obama's spending request for 2010, so it doesn't precisely accurately reflect exactly what was spent and where. But still, for this purpose, ought to be good enough.

35% of $3.55 trillion is $1.24 trillion. Cut that amount out of the spending below. Please be sure not to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Ok, go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

Go for it HCF, and remember not to cut pension checks, only "stupid programs."

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 01:51 PM
If you prefer to be more precise, then Obama's 2011 budget is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...us/budget.html

The breakdown is even made into much smaller buckets. Go there and work out $1.29 trillion of cuts (on a budget of $3.69 trillion at 35%). You can even opt to hide mandatory spending so you can just work on discretionary stuff.


Obamas budget?

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:52 PM
I read this earlier. Classic fear mongering bullshit. Why do we always hear this and not "Congress won't be getting paid" or something like that?


A-ha. Found it!

You may cut Congressional Members Compensation and Other for a savings of $140 million. Only $1,249,860,000,000 to go!

That box is found in the in the lower right hand portion of the "General" box.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:52 PM
Obamas budget?

Proposed.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 01:55 PM
If we default on debt....we don't have to, if you pay the debt first....then its all scare tactics.

Dems assume we pay everything but obligation to debt first, then we pay out. How stupid.

With all the options available to stop and stop spending, he will screw old folks? If you buy this crap you are nuts.


You are correct sir, that we can pay the debt first. Good plan my man, good plan. Default on our sovereign would be castastrophic. I'm with you there.

But we do need to cut $1.25 trillion because we can't borrow any more if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

You're up on How to Fix the Deficit Without Being Hung in Effigy:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 01:55 PM
Go for it HCF, and remember not to cut pension checks, only "stupid programs."Start with the 2006 budget numbers and cut from there. Much more possible that way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 01:58 PM
Cuts are a bitch. Only Obama would go after SS checks first.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:01 PM
In the other thread there was a question about this entry:

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt



By looking at the NYT breakdown, it appears to be the "Income Security" section, which includes food stamps (always a popular target), unemployment benefits, SSI, federal worker pension and disability, Section 8 housing, military retirement benefits, earned income tax credit, state child assistance, child tax credit, WIC, railroad retirement, low income energy assistance, Making Work Pay tax credit, etc.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:05 PM
Cuts are a bitch. Only Obama would go after SS checks first.

He didn't say he'd go after SS first. He said he couldn't guaranty SS checks would go out on August 3. That means they may not go out at all, or more likely that they could very well go out LATE.

Because, you know, that is a HUGE amount of money that is being paid out only a day or two after the debt ceiling is reached and accounting tricks don't work anymore. You can't send out checks that will bounce, can you? So the federal government needs to cover them just like you need to cover yours.

Seems not just plausible, but absolutely LIKELY that they couldn't go out on time.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:10 PM
Come on, come on....you can kill whatever you want. Don't like gun control? Whack the ATF. Save $1.16 Billion. For big dollars you can eliminate all food stamps. $80 billion in savings. At some point it gets tough, but you know, the easy stuff. Get rid of the entire FAA and Air Traffic Controller sso we can watch jumbo jets play bumper cars but you save $13 billion. VA Hospitals -- who needs 'em, save $46 billion. $73 billion if you whack all federal pensioners and disabled workers. Indian health? Have a band-aid and asprin and save $4 billion!

Let's Go. Whaddya gonna kill? $1.25 trillion! Step right up, step right up....

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:11 PM
Welcome, welcome, step right on up to the how the **** do I cut $1.25 trillion out of federal spending on 25 days notice game. You too can be a contestant.

Ok, so here's the deal -- by early August if the deadlock continues, the federal government can't borrow another dime. Therefore it must live completely within its means. Since the federal government borrows about 40% of every dollar it spends, the name of the game is to immediately reduce spending by 35%.

Here's one way set of statistics. The next post will contain additional information. Play the game however you want.

But remember -- you need to cut $1.25 trillion of spending. Choose wisely.


Well, this is one year out of date, but I couldnt' quickly find a similar breakdown for 2011. It should be close enough for this purpose.

And these numbers were Obama's spending request for 2010, so it doesn't precisely accurately reflect exactly what was spent and where. But still, for this purpose, ought to be good enough.

35% of $3.55 trillion is $1.24 trillion. Cut that amount out of the spending below. Please be sure not to touch Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Ok, go!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

The President's budget request for 2010 totals $3.55 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2009. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures

Mandatory spending: $2.173 trillion (+14.9%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (+58.6%) – Other mandatory programs
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

I'll just cut 35% off the top of all of those programs.

What did I win?

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 02:11 PM
He didn't say he'd go after SS first. He said he couldn't guaranty SS checks would go out on August 3. That means they may not go out at all, or more likely that they could very well go out LATE.

Because, you know, that is a HUGE amount of money that is being paid out only a day or two after the debt ceiling is reached and accounting tricks don't work anymore. You can't send out checks that will bounce, can you? So the federal government needs to cover them just like you need to cover yours.

Seems not just plausible, but absolutely LIKELY that they couldn't go out on time.

That is how I took it. He is not making any promises because nobody knows what will happen.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 02:12 PM
He didn't say he'd go after SS first. He said he couldn't guaranty SS checks would go out on August 3. That means they may not go out at all, or more likely that they could very well go out LATE.

Because, you know, that is a HUGE amount of money that is being paid out only a day or two after the debt ceiling is reached and accounting tricks don't work anymore. You can't send out checks that will bounce, can you? So the federal government needs to cover them just like you need to cover yours.

Seems not just plausible, but absolutely LIKELY that they couldn't go out on time.


Im sure thats what he meant to communicate. Too bad he had to toss out the no SS bullshit. Must have been accidental. Right?

FD
07-12-2011, 02:12 PM
I'll just cut 35% off the top of all of those programs.

What did I win?

A massive recession.

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:13 PM
That is how I took it. He is not making any promises because nobody knows what will happen.

Please. He's trying to scare the old people into browbeating their republican representative to give him what he wants.

And he's not even being very subtle about it.

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:15 PM
A massive recession.

So in other words we'll be in the same position we are currently?

FD
07-12-2011, 02:15 PM
Please. He's trying to scare the old people into browbeating their republican representative to give him what he wants.

And he's not even being very subtle about it.

You just advocated cutting Social Security checks by at least 35%. I think some seniors might find that "scary".

FD
07-12-2011, 02:15 PM
So in other words we'll be in the same position we are currently?

No, much worse. Thats the point.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:17 PM
A massive recession.


And with that massive recession, your party gets voted out of office for the next four or five election cycles! Oh, and since you cut 35% off interest payments, we're in default too!! Worldwide economic pandemic. Well done.

Oh, and 1/3rd of VA hospitals closing, Medicare/Medicaid disaster, severe reduction in military capability and states in revolt because you've thrown them all into dire financial straits too by eliminating all kinds of federal monies that go to the states.


You win! Congratulations!!

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM
You just advocated cutting Social Security checks by at least 35%. I think some seniors might find that "scary".

LOL and I think some seniors wouldn't get their check....Oops

BucEyedPea
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM
I'll just cut 35% off the top of all of those programs.

What did I win?

Sounds good to me. Or even 20% + defund Obamacare and all his Czars while we're at it.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:19 PM
Sounds good to me. Or even 20% + defund Obamacare and all his Czars while we're at it.


Please. Obamacare doesn't cost 15% of the federal budget, it's not even in force yet really. As usual, reality and BEP are on two different planes of existence.

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:21 PM
You just advocated cutting Social Security checks by at least 35%. I think some seniors might find that "scary".Hey, I could have just cut the whole damn thing. They should be happy with what I gave them. But just to show I'm not a bad guy, we can just get rid of Homeland Security and throw their budget at the old folks.

:shrug:

No, much worse. Thats the point.So what's the solution? Raise the debt ceiling and do nothing? Raise taxes? Have a bake sale?

I make a mean sweet potato pie.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 02:21 PM
We don't need to cut anything we just need Michelle Bachmann to pray it all away. It works with the gays I hear

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:22 PM
And with that massive recession, your party gets voted out of office for the next four or five election cycles! Oh, and since you cut 35% off interest payments, we're in default too!! Worldwide economic pandemic. Well done.

Oh, and 1/3rd of VA hospitals closing, Medicare/Medicaid disaster, severe reduction in military capability and states in revolt because you've thrown them all into dire financial straits too by eliminating all kinds of federal monies that go to the states.


You win! Congratulations!!

I'll ask you the same question. What's the solution then.

Or will you be contributing some rice crispy treats to the bake sale?

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 02:22 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/debt_ceiling_worst_case_scenario.html


Very worthwhile read that helps understand the issue is not as dire as the Obama folks want to make it out to be. Keep in mind we operate like a business with cash flow. All bills are not due the same day, not all payments are made at once and income flows with the same manner.

They want to make you think its all or nothing. They are selling a bill of goods. Simple as that.

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 02:23 PM
And with that massive recession, your party gets voted out of office for the next four or five election cycles! Oh, and since you cut 35% off interest payments, we're in default too!! Worldwide economic pandemic. Well done.

Oh, and 1/3rd of VA hospitals closing, Medicare/Medicaid disaster, severe reduction in military capability and states in revolt because you've thrown them all into dire financial straits too by eliminating all kinds of federal monies that go to the states.


You win! Congratulations!!
You know the scare mongering is hilarious to me. It's the grasping of the last straws defense and BOTH sides do it all the time. If the feds went back to the 2006 actual discretionary spending levels, they could save $150 billion per year. Now if you drop defense back to the pre-war figures the bushies used ($253 Billion less), you could save $400 Billion per year. The entitlements must be reduced if you ever want to balance the budget quickly however just cutting the budget to 2006 levels is a hell of a start.

For example, the Dept of Transportation's budget has exploded from 2006 - $14.6 Billion to Obama's wish (next year) $72.5 Billion... It's the spending, plain and simple

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:24 PM
I'll ask you the same question. What's the solution then.

Or will you be contributing some rice crispy treats to the bake sale?

The solution doesn't come in 25 days. While I applaud their efforts to put the deficit on a different trajectory, this brinksmanship and absolute unwillingness to bend on a penny of new taxes needs to stop.

vailpass
07-12-2011, 02:25 PM
Need to cut pensions and social services? Cut 'em. Bring on 2012.

And whose responsibility is it to have ensured that a budget is already in place? As I heard a Senator (Congressman?) from Georgia say on the Michael Medved show the other day: obama is unqualified and unprepared to hold the office of President. This is highlighted by his inability to lead on the budget issue.

At a time when America needs one of her strongest Presidents she is cursed with one of her weakest.

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 02:26 PM
and absolute unwillingness to bend on a penny of entitlement reform needs to stop. agreed

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:26 PM
You know the scare mongering is hilarious to me. It's the grasping of the last straws defense and BOTH sides do it all the time. If the feds went back to the 2006 actual discretionary spending levels, they could save $150 billion per year. Now if you drop defense back to the pre-war figures the bushies used ($253 Billion less), you could save $400 Billion per year. The entitlements must be reduced if you ever want to balance the budget quickly however just cutting the budget to 2006 levels is a hell of a start.

For example, the Dept of Transportation's budget has exploded from 2006 - $14.6 Billion to Obama's wish (next year) $72.5 Billion... It's the spending, plain and simple

Believe me, I understand, and fully favor a 6:1 (or whatever) cut in spendign to tax increase ratio. The spending side is by far the bigger part of the problem.

But for Republicans to control one house of Congress and wnat it all their way is absurd. That isn't how it works in our system. Never has been.

Amnorix
07-12-2011, 02:27 PM
agreed

Obama has signalled a willingness to revamp spending, including on entitlements. The Republicans, controlling ONE house of Congress, are trying to dictate policy. Good luck with that.

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:28 PM
The solution doesn't come in 25 days. While I applaud their efforts to put the deficit on a different trajectory, this brinksmanship and absolute unwillingness to bend on a penny of new taxes needs to stop.
If we're serious about getting our financial house in order, we need to set fire to the current tax code and start over with something simple and understandable. No more loophole bullshit.

EDIT: and yeah, I know that isn't happening in 25 days either.
2nd EDIT: And for the record, we really could use those rice crispy treats...

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 02:30 PM
Im sure the UN, our Afgan buddies, and all the foreign aid recipients breathed a sigh of relief knowing it was the retired Americans Obama will take from first. ACORN, NPR, Planned Parenthood, National academy for the arts, United Negro College fund, and La Raza must feel way better as well.



I wish Boehner had some balls. This is his hole shot. Call Obama's bluff and lets see him cut Seniors first. The election would be over.

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 02:30 PM
But for Republicans to control one house of Congress and wnat it all their way is absurd. That isn't how it works in our system. Never has been.Tax reform should have begun when the new Congress took office. That is the one thing coupled with spending freezes/reductions that could turn around the private sector. But, we are in a 12 month - 24X7 - all the time election cycle and this is what we get for it - brinkmanship. Both sides are not bending regardless of what Boehner or the Prez say. The repubs can't raise taxes and the dems can't cut entitlements. It is just that simple. I think the last ten years of Congress' and Administrations' should be called "The Kick the Can Down the Road Clan"

KC Dan
07-12-2011, 02:32 PM
Obama has signalled a willingness to revamp spending, including on entitlements. The Republicans, controlling ONE house of Congress, are trying to dictate policy. Good luck with that.Obama;s "willingness" is a front, a lie, a tactic. The left (controlling the other house of Congress) will not revamp entitlements thus dictating policy. Keep believing it but they won't just like the repubs won't budge on taxes.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 02:32 PM
Obama has signalled a willingness to revamp spending, including on entitlements. The Republicans, controlling ONE house of Congress, are trying to dictate policy. Good luck with that.

So help me here.


If Obama makes a proposal and the Republicans who control one house dont accept it, then they are "dictating Policy".

If the Republicans make a counter proposal and Obama does not accept it, the reason is the republicans are poopy face guys who dont play fair?

vailpass
07-12-2011, 02:34 PM
Where was this sense of urgency on obama's part 6 months ago? 12 months?

petegz28
07-12-2011, 02:35 PM
Where was this sense of urgency on obama's part 6 months ago? 12 months?

Moreso why have the Dems not produced a budget for 2 fucking years???

Jaric
07-12-2011, 02:37 PM
Moreso why have the Dems not produced a budget for 2 ****ing years???

Not sure, I blame the tea party.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 02:41 PM
So help me here.


If Obama makes a proposal and the Republicans who control one house dont accept it, then they are "dictating Policy".

If the Republicans make a counter proposal and Obama does not accept it, the reason is the republicans are poopy face guys who dont play fair?

Because people see Obama offering up SS and Medicare which are sacred cows to Dems and the Reps not offering up any sacred cows of their own.

The clear majority of people in this country in most polls support raising taxes and fixing the deficit in a balanced fashion as do most economists.

David Walker said it best on CNN last night:
Well, John Boehner is correct that the base of the Republican Party will not support any type of tax increases, even if it's eliminating tax expenditures where there can be a bipartisan agreement. He's wrong to say the American people won't. He's just wrong. And right now the President has got the high ground because he's basically saying, let's go for a long-term deal. I will put Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security on the table. All you need to do is to put tax expenditures on the table. By the way, we have the lowest revenues as a percentage of GDP in decades. It's less than 16 percent. Nonetheless, we are where we are and I think both parties are going to have to go to the electorate in 2012.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 02:43 PM
Moreso why have the Dems not produced a budget for 2 ****ing years???

Busy with golf, junkets, vacations, ethics hearings. Get a life and stop picking on them. Nancy did her darn tootinest best but was foiled by all the other stuff.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 04:23 PM
The clear majority of people in this country in most polls support raising taxes and fixing the deficit in a balanced fashion as do most economists.



In a pigs ass.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 04:31 PM
Its all about the dems fear of another election like the last one.

This is one things the sleazeballs get right.


(WaPo) — Top Democrats in charge of keeping the Senate in Dem hands and maintaining the political health of the party — DSCC chair Patty Murray and messaging chief Chuck Schumer — have privately expressed frustration that deep Medicare cuts risk squandering the major political advantage Democrats have built up on the issue, people familiar with internal discussions say.

Senators Murray and Schumer, along with other Dems like Debbie Stabenow and Mark Begich, have warned against deep cuts in recent leadership meetings, a source familiar with the meetings says, another sign of the unrest that the possibility of serious entitlements cuts is creating among Congressional Democrats.

“We shouldn’t be giving away our advantage on Medicare,” said a source familiar with Murray’s thinking, in characterizing her objections in private meetings. “We should be very careful about giving away the biggest advantage we’ve had as Democrats in some time.”

“For the first time in the past two and a half years we have an unmitigated advantage on a single issue where our entire caucus is united,” the source continues. “This is a case where the whole morale of our party was lifted by the fact that we were taking the fight to Republicans.”

The frustration on the Senate side is mirrored on the House side. Sam Stein reported on Friday that DCCC chair Steve Israel privately vented his frustration that serious Medicare cuts would hamper his ability to recruit good Dem candidates to challenge House GOP incumbents. And a number of Dem challengers have already launched their campaigns by alluding to the GOP’s unpopular Medicare plan, a reminder of just how central top Dem strategists want it to remain through 2012.

FD
07-12-2011, 05:28 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/debt_ceiling_worst_case_scenario.html


Very worthwhile read that helps understand the issue is not as dire as the Obama folks want to make it out to be. Keep in mind we operate like a business with cash flow. All bills are not due the same day, not all payments are made at once and income flows with the same manner.

They want to make you think its all or nothing. They are selling a bill of goods. Simple as that.

You realize this guy's plan you are citing cuts our military's budget by over a third. Is that something you are advocating? That seems like a pretty harsh measure.

Bewbies
07-12-2011, 05:31 PM
Because people see Obama offering up SS and Medicare which are sacred cows to Dems and the Reps not offering up any sacred cows of their own.

The clear majority of people in this country in most polls support raising taxes and fixing the deficit in a balanced fashion as do most economists.

David Walker said it best on CNN last night:




I don't know anyone who supports raising taxes.

Now, if there was a way that raising taxes would go directly against our debt and there was a constitutional amendment that we'd never borrow again, I'd support that.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 05:40 PM
Maybe this has already happened because I've been busy and not paying as close attention but until Reid and Pelosi stand in front of a camera and layout in great detail how they would cut entitlements I don't believe anything Obama says on the subject.

I mean with his track record for saying stuff that just isn't true.

VAChief
07-12-2011, 05:41 PM
I don't know anyone who supports raising taxes.

Now, if there was a way that raising taxes would go directly against our debt and there was a constitutional amendment that we'd never borrow again, I'd support that.

Canturd would never allow it...this is a huge opportunity for real change to happen and the entrenched idealogues on both sides are going to waste it. Pelosi and Reid screwed up on the HC and stimulus...Canturd is trying his best to join them.

LOCOChief
07-12-2011, 05:41 PM
Debt whore's called out:

http://youtu.be/t3L2AO09KmM

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 05:42 PM
You realize this guy's plan you are citing cuts our military's budget by over a third. Is that something you are advocating? That seems like a pretty harsh measure.



Unlike many, I don't know what the right amount of a cut is doable. But I can assure you a cut is in order and must take place. Recognize as well the incredible political pressure that will be generated over reductions in military even from those who are advocates of major cuts.

Example will be base consolidation. When that is looked into I believe there are major cost benefits of consolidation. BUT the left right and middle will run into the streets with hair afire if the base is in their town/district/state that is proposed to shut down.

Any reduction in spending will be hit by the dem or rep whos district resides the company that is cut out.

Military spending can be reduced but has to be done in a manner that does not decrease our readiness, our core capabilities and our ability to respond to threats at home or abroad effectively.

Is it 1/3? I have no idea. But that may be a laudable goal.

Id go so far as to say we coulfd cut 1/3 from Education and see no negative impact. EPA could be cut a bunch. Foreign aid through the state department needs an axe taken to it. The list is as wide as the appropriations made. NO department would suffer under an across the board 10% cut effective in the next fiscal year.

We would find out what departments have able leadership that can manage a major cut. And those who cant do it can find themselves a job somewhere else.

VAChief
07-12-2011, 05:44 PM
Maybe this has already happened because I've been busy and not paying as close attention but until Reid and Pelosi stand in front of a camera and layout in great detail how they would cut entitlements I don't believe anything Obama says on the subject.

I mean with his track record for saying stuff that just isn't true.

They are both saying no, but if the R's put some new revenue measures on the table they won't have much pull...Canturd right now is the added turd in the fishbowl. If he would let Boehner do his job I think we could see something reasonable on both sides that sets us on a better path. With Canturd setting a no compromise stance it only emboldens the extreme left to do the same.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 05:46 PM
Believe me, I understand, and fully favor a 6:1 (or whatever) cut in spendign to tax increase ratio. The spending side is by far the bigger part of the problem.

But for Republicans to control one house of Congress and wnat it all their way is absurd. That isn't how it works in our system. Never has been.

Agreed. All of this "its just scare tactics, we can not raise the debt limit without serious harm" is a pile of looney head in the sand nonsense. Our tax rates are at some of the lowest levels in modern American history. We've got a spending problem more than a revenue problem, but it is not reasonable given our low tax rates to expect the Dems to go with massive entitlement cuts without a penny in increased revenue, you cant credibly make the case to the voters that the Dems forced the default when Obama publicly put all their sacred cows on the table, and playing chicken with our economy wont change that.

I think a deal will get done and this mini-crisis will be mostly forgotten early next year, but if we default the GOP is going to get nearly all of the blame for the chaos that follows.

3 weeks from now, the 2012 and possibly the 2014 midterm elections could effectively be over.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 05:52 PM
In a pigs ass.

I hope it isn't your pig



A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_060511_ATMIDNIGHT.html) found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll (http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/) found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll (http://images.coloradoindependent.com/report.SOCIAL-SECURITY-WORKS.CO_.-MEDIA-VERSION-fREV.050211.pdf) of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rD5K5bhaPEac) found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10715) found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595) found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 05:54 PM
They are both saying no, but if the R's put some new revenue measures on the table they won't have much pull...Canturd right now is the added turd in the fishbowl. If he would let Boehner do his job I think we could see something reasonable on both sides that sets us on a better path. With Canturd setting a no compromise stance it only emboldens the extreme left to do the same.

I'm not blaming Cantor for anything. The house GOP has the leadership they want, and according to a lot of credible reports any deal will need lots of Dem votes because there are apparently a big chunk of Freshman Bachmann types in the house who are prepared to vote no on any debt limit increase under any circumstances. They apparently believe we can stop borrowing money, right now, forever.

Cantor is just giving voice to a huge chunk of the house, its not like he's preventing the house from passing something they want. If the votes were there for something the speaker wanted, he'd just steamroll his deputy.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 05:58 PM
I hope it isn't your pig



A June 9 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_060511_ATMIDNIGHT.html) found that 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.

A June 7 Pew poll (http://people-press.org/2011/06/07/more-blame-wars-than-domestic-spending-or-tax-cuts-for-nations-debt/) found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction.

A May 26 Lake Research poll (http://images.coloradoindependent.com/report.SOCIAL-SECURITY-WORKS.CO_.-MEDIA-VERSION-fREV.050211.pdf) of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin.

A May 13 Bloomberg poll (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rD5K5bhaPEac) found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not.

A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll (http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10715) found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.

A May 4 Quinnipiac poll (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595) found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.



EVERYONE favors raising taxes on someone else. Jesus, you think thats gonna happen? Tax increases, if they happen, and if they have a prayer of being effective will need to go way deeper than 250 up. Multinationals will use accounting to reduce the impact, small business will get hammered since we cannot shelter and hide , and employment will be hit even harder.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:07 PM
They are both saying no, but if the R's put some new revenue measures on the table they won't have much pull...Canturd right now is the added turd in the fishbowl. If he would let Boehner do his job I think we could see something reasonable on both sides that sets us on a better path. With Canturd setting a no compromise stance it only emboldens the extreme left to do the same.

If dems would call for an across the board tax increase I'd be for it. Everyone should be on the hook for our debt.

Any tax that is more progressive and/or punishes one class I am feverently against and will back 'Canturd'.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 06:10 PM
EVERYONE favors raising taxes on someone else. Jesus, you think thats gonna happen? Tax increases, if they happen, and if they have a prayer of being effective will need to go way deeper than 250 up. Multinationals will use accounting to reduce the impact, small business will get hammered since we cannot shelter and hide , and employment will be hit even harder.

Do I think that raising taxes is going to happen? I don't know but I believe in order to solve part of the debt problem we need to raise more revenue.

We have the lowest revenues as a percentage of GDP in decades. It's less than 16 percent
I would support major tax reform, streamline it, and cut out all the loopholes.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 06:11 PM
Agreed. All of this "its just scare tactics, we can not raise the debt limit without serious harm" is a pile of looney head in the sand nonsense. Our tax rates are at some of the lowest levels in modern American history. We've got a spending problem more than a revenue problem, but it is not reasonable given our low tax rates to expect the Dems to go with massive entitlement cuts without a penny in increased revenue, you cant credibly make the case to the voters that the Dems forced the default when Obama publicly put all their sacred cows on the table, and playing chicken with our economy wont change that.

I think a deal will get done and this mini-crisis will be mostly forgotten early next year, but if we default the GOP is going to get nearly all of the blame for the chaos that follows.

3 weeks from now, the 2012 and possibly the 2014 midterm elections could effectively be over.

Care to explain what happened the other 3 times we defaulted?

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:13 PM
I would support major tax reform, streamline it, and cut out all the loopholes.
I might even let you off the hook for that post. ;)

Remember I said "might".

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 06:14 PM
Funny the peoples SS will stop coming but the wars will continue.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 06:19 PM
I might even let you off the hook for that post. ;)

Remember I said "might".

No worries I am going to be right :harumph:



:D

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:20 PM
Funny the peoples SS will stop coming but the wars will continue.Not funny, sad really that Obama would put building roads and bridges in Afghanistan ahead of a 65 year old widow just trying to eat.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:22 PM
No worries I am going to be right :harumph:



:DI'm working on a three way sex tape with her, me, and my wife, but right now Sarah isn't answering emails. That would end it.

The things you go through for a case of beer.

Chocolate Hog
07-12-2011, 06:23 PM
Not funny, sad really that Obama would put building roads and bridges in Afghanistan ahead of a 65 year old widow just trying to eat.

It's telling and that turkey looking fucker McConell and the guy who sounds like a fast food drive through aren't helping things.

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 06:27 PM
I'm working on a three way sex tape with her, me, and my wife, but right now Sarah isn't answering emails. That would end it.

The things you go through for a case of beer.

That would be worth a case or 2 of beer. LMAO

dirk digler
07-12-2011, 06:28 PM
Not funny, sad really that Obama would put building roads and bridges in Afghanistan ahead of a 65 year old widow just trying to eat.

We have enough old farts

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:29 PM
It's telling and that turkey looking ****er McConell and the guy who sounds like a fast food drive through aren't helping things.The dems are viewing this as a way to further drive a wedge into the progressive tax system only to keep and enlarge their base. Once the tax increase is in place they realize they have years to benefit from the cash. In the long run any progressive tax increase will go more towards making more americans dependent on the government than debt reduction and the dems know it.

VAChief
07-12-2011, 06:31 PM
If dems would call for an across the board tax increase I'd be for it. Everyone should be on the hook for our debt.

Any tax that is more progressive and/or punishes one class I am feverently against and will back 'Canturd'.

I know that raising any taxes right now is tenuous at best, I just don't understand saying anything is off the table. If programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the table...which lets be honest punishes one class then why shouldn't revenue be given some consideration also? In the short term I would also like to see some corporate tax breaks, payroll holidays etc. plans considered to see if we can entice some money we are losing overseas to come back.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:32 PM
That would be worth a case or 2 of beer. LMAODon't mention it to my wife. I haven't let her in on the plan yet. She doesn't drink beer. I could have sold it easier if a case of her brand of tequila was in play but that's water under the bridge and I just have to work with it.

VAChief
07-12-2011, 06:40 PM
Not funny, sad really that Obama would put building roads and bridges in Afghanistan ahead of a 65 year old widow just trying to eat.

I couldn't agree more, we need to get the F out of that cluster.... If the rest of the free world wants us to be the global terror police fine...start billing at Haliburton rates.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 06:49 PM
I know that raising any taxes right now is tenuous at best, I just don't understand saying anything is off the table. If programs like SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are on the table...which lets be honest punishes one class then why shouldn't revenue be given some consideration also? In the short term I would also like to see some corporate tax breaks, payroll holidays etc. plans considered to see if we can entice some money we are losing overseas to come back.

We don't know for sure SS, Medicare, Medicaid are on the table. Obama telling me something without dem congressional leaders agreeing with it doesn't mean anything.

As to the rest of your post I agree. My only issue is where the revenue comes from. Targeting jet owners also targets workers. Targeting oil companies might push them away from developing our own oil.

Go across the board and I'm in.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 06:50 PM
Care to explain what happened the other 3 times we defaulted?

That will be difficult, since the US government has never defaulted on a debt in its history. In 1790, many of the states were broke. The US government modified the debt, and then assumed the debt, almost as if they were a bankruptcy judge. This is the opposite of a default, in that the feds made repayment more likely under lesser terms, rather than let the states stiff the creditors. The feds could have instead done nothing and told the people who lent the money that it was their fault for lending to a state without recognizing the risk.

In the 1800's a bunch of states defaulted a bunch of times. In 1933 while we were beginning to get off the gold standard, the feds repaid debts using (inflated) fiat currency rather than gold coins.

At the federal level, we've never had a situation where a creditor was due an interest payment and we basically said "nah, we don't feel like it". In today's world, the consequences would be immediate and disastrous.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 06:55 PM
We don't know for sure SS, Medicare, Medicaid are on the table. Obama telling me something without dem congressional leaders agreeing with it doesn't mean anything.

As to the rest of your post I agree. My only issue is where the revenue comes from. Targeting jet owners also targets workers. Targeting oil companies might push them away from developing our own oil.

Go across the board and I'm in.

On one side, we've got Obama saying all options are on the table. Whether he is lying or not, whether the congressional dems will back him up (looney Pelosi doesn't count), we'll never know, but thats what they are saying. On the other side, we've got the GOP saying absolutely no to taxes, it has to be all cuts. Their way or the highway.

Lets say neither blink, we default, and to almost no one's surprise a total disaster happens. Given what happened with Newt and Clinton, who do you think the voters will blame? It would be one thing if both sides say everything's on the table, a deal doesn't get done, and they point fingers, but the GOP has been very up-front about their unwillingness to compromise to this point.

mlyonsd
07-12-2011, 07:17 PM
On one side, we've got Obama saying all options are on the table. Whether he is lying or not, whether the congressional dems will back him up (looney Pelosi doesn't count), we'll never know, but thats what they are saying. On the other side, we've got the GOP saying absolutely no to taxes, it has to be all cuts. Their way or the highway.

Lets say neither blink, we default, and to almost no one's surprise a total disaster happens. Given what happened with Newt and Clinton, who do you think the voters will blame? It would be one thing if both sides say everything's on the table, a deal doesn't get done, and they point fingers, but the GOP has been very up-front about their unwillingness to compromise to this point.I understand who has the upper ground. I also understand who has the moral ground IMO.

I also think what you call a total disaster might be a blessing in disguise for the future of the country.

alnorth
07-12-2011, 07:46 PM
I also think what you call a total disaster might be a blessing in disguise for the future of the country.

You may think otherwise if the GOP gets wiped out and the solution ends up being virtually 100% tax increases to pay for everything with no long-term belt-tightening. The last time we had a depression the top personal income tax rate shot over 95% in response and the Republicans were banished into the wilderness for a very long time.

If this thing falls through, the economy takes a dump, and the GOP gets the blame in a high-profile presidential election year when everyone, even the poor and ignorant go to the polls, the GOP could look back and bitterly regret not bargaining in good faith when Obama was proposing 3:1 or 4:1 cuts:taxes.

HonestChieffan
07-12-2011, 07:51 PM
You may think otherwise if the GOP gets wiped out and the solution ends up being virtually 100% tax increases to pay for everything with no long-term belt-tightening. The last time we had a depression the top personal income tax rate shot over 95% in response and the Republicans were banished into the wilderness for a very long time.

If this thing falls through, the economy takes a dump, and the GOP gets the blame in a high-profile presidential election year when everyone, even the poor and ignorant go to the polls, the GOP could look back and bitterly regret not bargaining in good faith when Obama was proposing 3:1 or 4:1 cuts:taxes.

Obama doesn't have to bargain in good faith?

petegz28
07-12-2011, 07:52 PM
On one side, we've got Obama saying all options are on the table. Whether he is lying or not, whether the congressional dems will back him up (looney Pelosi doesn't count), we'll never know, but thats what they are saying. On the other side, we've got the GOP saying absolutely no to taxes, it has to be all cuts. Their way or the highway.

Lets say neither blink, we default, and to almost no one's surprise a total disaster happens. Given what happened with Newt and Clinton, who do you think the voters will blame? It would be one thing if both sides say everything's on the table, a deal doesn't get done, and they point fingers, but the GOP has been very up-front about their unwillingness to compromise to this point.

We won't default. The Treasury can borrow the monies needed to meet debt obligations without congressional approval since these debts were previously approved legally by congress.

Mr. Kotter
07-12-2011, 08:46 PM
Lord knows, Republicans never, ever use scare tactics; nope, never ever. Heh. LMAO

petegz28
07-12-2011, 08:48 PM
Lord knows, Republicans never, ever use scare tactics; nope, never ever. Heh. LMAO

Dude, after the "health care summit" I am convinced the Dems own that crown. Not 1, not 1 single Dem ever addressed anything in the plan. Every single one touted sob stories. Every single one. Everytime a Repub addressed a particular part of the plan the Dems' reply was about some lady stealing teeth from her dead sister and such.

Amnorix
07-13-2011, 06:24 AM
We won't default. The Treasury can borrow the monies needed to meet debt obligations without congressional approval since these debts were previously approved legally by congress.

The obligation to pay was incurred by Congress, but the authority to borrow money to pay for them was NOT.

It's an open issue. Very open.