The Debt ceiling

[DevilMinder]

Suprised nobody has brought this up yet. Reading all the news sites and just completely baffled on how our elected officials can be playing chicken with something that was once a matter of rubber stamping. If only half of the doomsday predictions come true it sounds like this could be very bad.

[jim777]

It won't be, but I'm guessing nothing will get done until August 1st regardless. The DOW is down less than 2% from its yearly high, so the markets don't think it's anything other than idiot posturing right now either. But yeah, a default would be absolutely catastrophic for the nation and the world, really.

[Devils Dose]

The difference this time, DM, is that after last fall's election, the teaparty conservatives think that they own the country, or at least the House Republicans. They think we can just end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs and this will solve the financial problems without requiring more debt. While that message is clear, if extreme, the American public is not being nearly as precise. We don't want more debt, we don't want cuts, we don't want new taxes (though some of the White House's tax ideas do carry popular support). We'll see who gives in, as I too am sure that someone will. The posturing after that happens will make for fun politics, as opposed to the nervousness that this buildup inspires.

[devilsfan26]

Perhaps if they stopped letting massive corporations get away with paying no taxes on their billions and billions of profit, they wouldn't need to talk about cutting programs people actually use like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It doesn't matter to them though, they can do whatever they want and people will still keep voting them in. Maybe someday when we can't retire until we're 85 people will start to consider alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, that is if they don't completely restrict the ballot to only two choices moreso than they already are.

Edited July 27, 2011 by devilsfan26

[Quinn01]

Just out of curiosity, why does John Boehner always cry?

[squishyx]

Just out of curiosity, why does John Boehner always cry?

He always has, he explained it in an interview that he is just an emotional guy. The issue took the limelight after he became speaker (which is rapidly becoming a very thankless position regardless of party).

This whole issue makes me sad. There is clearly a lot of brinkmanship going on from both sides but I think it's clear to the country who the true obstructionists are here. Republicans ran around screaming that the American people didn't want health care and pointed to every poll they could find, and now are conveniently ignoring them when they say they should compromise. Ultimately raising the debt ceiling is not about future spending, it's about agreeing to pay bills that we already accrued. This should be a simple procedure, no strings attached vote that's turning into a nightmare by a party who would let the entire house burn down rather then sacrifice just the living room.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Unbelievable even for you Squishy. Are you twittered the DNC talking points everyday?

Explain one simple thing to me. How can a party "compromise" when there is no bill to compromise to?

And you actually wrote "the Republicans screamed the American people didn't want health care"........cite me ONE source for that outrageous lie. Not every one here is stupid...........except maybe DevilDose who himself writes, "They think we can just end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs and this will solve the financial problems without requiring more debt.".......now where is that proposal?

Un-friggin'-believable

[squishyx]

Unbelievable even for you Squishy. Are you twittered the DNC talking points everyday?

Explain one simple thing to me. How can a party "compromise" when there is no bill to compromise to?

Wow, talk about "talking points". Republicans love to say that but it's such a shallow empty statement. Since when has congress ever needed to have something written down in a bill in order for compromise to start? For whatever it's worth spending bills are supposed to originate in the house, so the onus has always been on the republicans to write something. As you can see, Boehner can't even get his own bills through so now it looks like the senate will have to initiate this.

The whole needing a bill to compromise is bullsh!t and you know it. All you need is a table and people on both sides ready to compromise and then you write a bill together. Democrats control 2/3rds of the government and the plans that were being hashed out called for 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases just to pass a debt ceiling raise that should have been a mere procedural vote. If you can't see how that is such a huge give to your party then you truly have the blinders on. As it is, republicans tried to squeeze the lemon so tight they lost it all and they are going to pay for it at the polls.

Don't be surprised if Obama bypasses congress on this and just lifts the debt ceiling via executive decision, he almost doesn't have a choice.

And you actually wrote "the Republicans screamed the American people didn't want health care"........cite me ONE source for that outrageous lie. Not every one here is stupid...........except maybe DevilDose who himself writes, "They think we can just end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs and this will solve the financial problems without requiring more debt.".......now where is that proposal?

Un-friggin'-believable

Obviously I was talking about the healthcare reform that was passed, why are you feigning such outrage? the context should have been clear, but if it wasn't there it is. Every republican and their grandmother was running around shouting that the "american people don't want obamacare shoved down their throats" and they cited polls to back those statements. While I still maintain you don't govern like that, republicans should at least be consistent.

Edited July 27, 2011 by squishyx

[CarpathianForest]

John Boner cries a lot because he's a drunk alcoholic mess who realized he sold his soul to the devil and belongs to a party that would throw you under the bus quicker than a sneeze. He's got a bunch of Tea Party dummies who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground on one side and a bunch or Rethugs who only care about the Koch Brothers on the other side. He knows his days are numbered, Eric Cantor is already sharpening his knives to stab him in the back.

Edited July 27, 2011 by CarpathianForest

[Jimmy Leeds]

John Boner cries a lot because he's a drunk alcoholic mess who realized he sold his soul to the devil and belongs to a party that would throw you under the bus quicker than a sneeze. He's got a bunch of Tea Party dummies who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground on one side and a bunch or Rethugs who only care about the Koch Brothers on the other side. He knows his days are numbered, Eric Cantor is already sharpening his knives to stab him in the back.

More pearls of wisdom. You should leave this to the big boys and not get in over your head.

Reid's Plan

[Jerrydevil]

This is when the two parties SHOULD be compromising: After cut, cap and balanced is passed. Then Obama and the Democrats can finally make it known what government programs are most important to them. Maybe it'll force them to make a real effort.

Because the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones serious about tackling the problem. Some call it "fanaticism," I call it responsible. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to get the American people on his side with this "balanced approach" garbage and talking about "millionaires and billionaires" paying more because they can afford it. It's populist smokescreen BS that obfuscates the real problem: that BIG spending cuts must occur to start digging out of this hole. What a bad leader he is.

If Obama isn't soundly defeated in 2012, it's a sad reflection on this country. He's not good for our future.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Jerrydevil

[squishyx]

This is when the two parties SHOULD be compromising: After cut, cap and balanced is passed. Then Obama and the Democrats can finally make it known what government programs are most important to them. Maybe it'll force them to make a real effort.

Because the Tea Party Republicans are the only ones serious about tackling the problem. Some call it "fanaticism," I call it responsible. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to get the American people on his side with this "balanced approach" garbage and talking about "millionaires and billionaires" paying more because they can afford it. It's populist smokescreen BS that obfuscates the real problem: that BIG spending cuts must occur to start digging out of this hole. What a bad leader he is.

If Obama isn't soundly defeated in 2012, it's a sad reflection on this country. He's not good for our future.

I'm sorry but what is responsible about not paying for things past administrations and congresses already agreed too? You may not like the way we spend and reform is all well and good but you can't just reneg on past promises. Especially when doing so will cause greater harm to the very thing you are trying to solve.

The "tea party" has some 87 seats in the house that has a total of 435. The number of democrats in the house alone dwarf the tea party, let alone the fact that they control the other two branches of government, why should the tea party get their way? When they win another few elections then we can talk, until then they are nothing but a fringe result of hyper partisan rhetoric. If the debt ceiling isn't raised there is a good chance Obama won't win re-election, but he will take the entire tea party with him.

The problem is not just spending. How can you open with "the two sides should be compromising" and then fail to present an accurate description of the problem at hand? Yes we are spending too much, but we are also collecting far fewer tax revenues, and on top of that our GDP took a huge hit in the recession and hasn't recovered yet. That's a trifecta of issues that will lead to massive debt. Yes we need to deal with it, but we can't even touch any of those problems if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/ Has a nice summary of our problems to date with the debt. If anyone thinks the solution is to just cut spending, or just raise taxes they should just keep their heads in the sand and let the rest of us deal with the problem. We need a mix of both.

Edited July 28, 2011 by squishyx

[Devils Dose]

And you actually wrote "the Republicans screamed the American people didn't want health care"........cite me ONE source for that outrageous lie. Not every one here is stupid...........except maybe DevilDose who himself writes, "They think we can just end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other programs and this will solve the financial problems without requiring more debt.".......now where is that proposal?

It's not a proposal Jimmy, it's a mindset, one I would describe as 'purifying American capitalism.' I'm not going to pretend to be a macroeconomics professor, who can say what this amount spending here and these taxes taken from there will do. I'm also not going to say that I'm the best informed on the issue when I haven't even been in the country for awhile. But I've learned a lot of global history while travelling, and one common theme is that the rich can only protect each other for so long before a public that sees it as unfair revolts. America's system decidely helps those in high places, and if people see this as unfair, something will happen eventually.

I may sound off topic, but since the debt ceiling vote has become chained to the spending/taxes debate, it's fundamentally a discussion of the philosophy of running our country. How to evaluate the capital and social philosophies seems like an intractable problem to me though. It has been good that the debt ceiling has forced serious debate on these issues of our future. But now it's time to decouple the issues, pass the higher ceiling, and see if can't continue to have serious talks about spending and taxes.

One other thing, though. The president has been forcing this extension to go beyond his reelection bid, and this is definitely hurting the situation as well.

[squishyx]

One other thing, though. The president has been forcing this extension to go beyond his reelection bid, and this is definitely hurting the situation as well.

He isn't forcing it to go beyond 2013 anymore then Republicans are trying to force it to be shorter. And it isn't just him, it's every house democrat and every senate democrat up for election in 2012, they don't have this issue months before an election. In that same tune, republicans want exactly that.

That's the brinksmanship on both sides.

FWIW though, this is the 102 debt ceiling raise, and when you divide that over the country's existence the average extension is for about 1.5 years, it's not exactly like their request here is so out of line of norm. This particular raise also needs to be larger in nature because for the last 6 months or so the Teasury has been stealing money from back up coffers, and when the ceiling is raised that will be replenished. They expect to burn through almost a trillion dollars by December.

[Jerrydevil]

Squishy, we just won't agree, that's all. But fine, let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I still want to see a Democrat cost-cutting plan with specifics. We haven't even seen a proposed budget from the Democrat-controlled Senate in two years. They are not leaders on the debt issue and the House Republicans are. The Democrat narrative is to sit on the sidelines and say that the lunatic fringe on the right is driving the country to the precipice. It's inane, and no thinking person should buy it.

Just like the New York Rangers needed a salary cap to build a stronger, sounder organization, the Democrats need cut, cap and balance to get them focused on their priorities. Smaller government is going to happen eventually. They ought to accept it and participate in the process while they still have power. If they don't wake up, they're going to get destroyed in 2012, like they were destroyed in 2010.

[squishyx]

Squishy, we just won't agree, that's all. But fine, let the Bush tax cuts expire.

I still want to see a Democrat cost-cutting plan with specifics. We haven't even seen a proposed budget from the Democrat-controlled Senate in two years. They are not leaders on the debt issue and the House Republicans are. The Democrat narrative is to sit on the sidelines and say that the lunatic fringe on the right is driving the country to the precipice. It's inane, and no thinking person should buy it.

Budget / spending / cutting bills are supposed to originate in the house, so really what you are saying isn't uncommon. Still, it would be nice if they presented something, if for no other reason then to make the argument moot.

Just like the New York Rangers needed a salary cap to build a stronger, sounder organization, the Democrats need cut, cap and balance to get them focused on their priorities. Smaller government is going to happen eventually. They ought to accept it and participate in the process while they still have power. If they don't wake up, they're going to get destroyed in 2012, like they were destroyed in 2010.

I agree with you, we need to control our spending. And the "grand bargain" they were working on was 75% spending cuts. Even if you abhor raising taxes that's at least a good starting point. They could have agreed to that, passed the ceiling and then worked on their agenda, and if they couldn't pass it they could turn around and say "elect more of us so we can" but that's not what happened.

[Jimmy Leeds]

It's not a proposal Jimmy, it's a mindset, one I would describe as 'purifying American capitalism.' I'm not going to pretend to be a macroeconomics professor, who can say what this amount spending here and these taxes taken from there will do. I'm also not going to say that I'm the best informed on the issue when I haven't even been in the country for awhile. But I've learned a lot of global history while travelling, and one common theme is that the rich can only protect each other for so long before a public that sees it as unfair revolts. America's system decidely helps those in high places, and if people see this as unfair, something will happen eventually.

I may sound off topic, but since the debt ceiling vote has become chained to the spending/taxes debate, it's fundamentally a discussion of the philosophy of running our country. How to evaluate the capital and social philosophies seems like an intractable problem to me though. It has been good that the debt ceiling has forced serious debate on these issues of our future. But now it's time to decouple the issues, pass the higher ceiling, and see if can't continue to have serious talks about spending and taxes.

One other thing, though. The president has been forcing this extension to go beyond his reelection bid, and this is definitely hurting the situation as well.

Well said

[Devils731]

It's a little bizarre seeing members of Congress saying the President should usurpe one of their powers.

[Devils Dose]

He isn't forcing it to go beyond 2013 anymore then Republicans are trying to force it to be shorter. And it isn't just him, it's every house democrat and every senate democrat up for election in 2012, they don't have this issue months before an election. In that same tune, republicans want exactly that.

That's the brinksmanship on both sides.

FWIW though, this is the 102 debt ceiling raise, and when you divide that over the country's existence the average extension is for about 1.5 years, it's not exactly like their request here is so out of line of norm. This particular raise also needs to be larger in nature because for the last 6 months or so the Teasury has been stealing money from back up coffers, and when the ceiling is raised that will be replenished. They expect to burn through almost a trillion dollars by December.

Believe me, if it were in my hands, we´d just raise it long enough to cover all of our outstanding committments, then starting talking about getting spending and taxes to more sustainable levels. I don´t know what exact offers there have been, but I remember the President saying that any extension that doesn´t cover the rest of his term is a non-starter. Maybe buying time just until the end of December and debating how to tackle debt up until then would be beneficial for the country.

An æside: I heard some analyst on RT (that´s Russia Today, a 24hr news channel) say that she thinks a default would mean lower borrowing rates for our government. Her logic: the market is too attached to the idea that US treasuries are the most secure investment in the world. If we default, that indicates far more global risk than we had ever assumed. Thus investors will send more money to the most secure investments --> US treasuries. I understand her argument, but does that make sense to anybody else?

Edited July 28, 2011 by Devils Dose

[squishyx]

Believe me, if it were in my hands, we´d just raise it long enough to cover all of our outstanding committments, then starting talking about getting spending and taxes to more sustainable levels. I don´t know what exact offers there have been, but I remember the President saying that any extension that doesn´t cover the rest of his term is a non-starter. Maybe buying time just until the end of December and debating how to tackle debt up until then would be beneficial for the country.

If I were president and congress offered me a clean raise up until say March? sure I would take that. Not December though, it's too close to the holiday season and it might not be far enough out to stave off a ratings downgrade. Look at how slow it took congress to act on this and they have been getting scolded by Geithner for 6 months. I agree entirely that that president wants the long term extension solely because he doesn't want another fight before an election, it doesn't make him look good. That said that politicking (right word?) does go both ways so I view it as a wash. If the republicans passed a clean debt ceiling raise I would def agree the president should sign it regardless of how it makes him look, but that's not an option on the table.

[Devilsfan118]

I don't know much about politics, so I usually stay away from these types of debates. But, I just wanted to say this:

If Lou Lamoriello was President of the United States, we wouldn't be in this current situation

[Devils Dose]

I don't know much about politics, so I usually stay away from these types of debates. But, I just wanted to say this:

If Lou Lamoriello was President of the United States, we wouldn't be in this current situation

Oh I respectfully disagree sir. If Lou were running this show, we would all be cringing right now with the deadline approaching and absolutely no information coming out about what's being done. Then, at the last minute, TG would tell us that he's made a deal and everything was fine all along.

[Devilsfan118]

Oh I respectfully disagree sir. If Lou were running this show, we would all be cringing right now with the deadline approaching and absolutely no information coming out about what's being done. Then, at the last minute, TG would tell us that he's made a deal and everything was fine all along.

Touche!

[Jerrydevil]

"If the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion." -- Thomas Sowell

I think this is very well said, and is the primary reason why the House Republicans should claim their small victory and move on to the business of winning the Senate and the presidency.

[squishyx]

Sounds like they got a deal done

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60344.html