Might it be good to have a budget before we borrow and spend?

Not raising the debt ceiling will NOT mean default. Barack Obama borrows lots of money, but not all spending is borrowed. About 60% of what President Obama spends comes directly from taxes and taxes withheld our pay exceed the interest the Treasury owes on its debt. So threats of default are BS. What would be cut is spending. And if you are spending money, it is better to have some idea what you will spend. You need a budget. The House passed budgets each of the last two years; the Senate failed to act. Might it be good to have a budget before you borrow and spend?

It really is pretty silly when you think about it. Imagine your son or daughter comes to you wanting money. You ask what for and he/she shrugs and says "Idonno - stuff." You might give him/her small amounts, but if the prodigal son or daughter was spending so much that you had to take out a second mortgage, you might ask for some kind of budget.

IMO - we should raise the debt ceiling if we need to but not before we know what the additional borrowing will be paying for, i.e. after Congress passes and the President signs some kind of budget. It really is pretty crazy that we are borrowing and spending more than ever w/o having a plan about it.

Let's take a quick poll. How many of you have a plan/budget for your own spending? Presumably the rest just buy what they want on impulse when they want it and pay whatever bills show up by borrowing money, constantly being buffeted by "emergencies" and unexpected costs. The first group is acting like responsible adults. The second group is acting like Congress and President Obama.

BTW - if you think you are getting paid less this year, you are right. And with all those Obama taxes and fees coming up, this will be happening for the next few years too. Maybe we need to put this guy on a budget.

Posted by Christine & John at January 14, 2013 3:16 PM
Comments
Comment #360425

Don’t forget that not passing one is illegal as well…

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021012-600854-democrats-refusal-to-pass-budget-is-illegal.htm

Actually, “the fact is,” Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president. That none of this happens suggests a level of disrespect for the law and the people found only among criminals.

As for the “agreed-upon cap on spending” mentioned by Hoyer: How’s that model of fiscal restraint working out? Well, a new report out Thursday notes that Congress has already blown right through the spending “cap” put in place just last summer.

According to the Heritage Foundation, “last week’s Congressional Budget Office report shows they (Congress) have exceeded their official Budget Control Act limits for the current year by a stunning $156 billion.”


Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021012-600854-democrats-refusal-to-pass-budget-is-illegal.htm#ixzz2HzDMxUH0

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 14, 2013 4:08 PM
Comment #360431

If there was a budget then the Democrats would have to be more responsible for the money they spend and account for what they spend it on. And that’s something y’all don’t expect the ‘great one’ to do is it? Then he’d have to stop wasting our money on stimulus packages for his conies. And he’d have to quit wasting our money on green companies that go belly up a few weeks later. And all because y’all want him to have a pesky budget. How dare y’all.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2013 5:02 PM
Comment #360437

A sitting congress is not bound by what a previous congress has done, and can change nearly everything done before including spending.

We have a spending problem that led to a deficit problem. This congress can reduce already authorized spending, and future spending, if it has the will to do so. Congress can also sell off federal assets that are not being used and are not needed; to raise money. Congress has already increased taxes and that will help if no new spending is authorized.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 14, 2013 5:32 PM
Comment #360453

I own one and a half businesses. Both businesses have to run on budgets to insure that we don’t spend more money than we have. The budgets tell us how much we can spend on any item. Both budgets have to be balanced. We can’t spend more than we made or we’d soon be out of business.
If we can do this for a business why can’t the government do it for the country?

We recently took out a loan to buy a new truck for the farm supply store. In order to get the loan we had to show that the store was making enough money to not only cover the loan payments but the other expenses also. They also looked at our books for the last five years to make sure our budgets were balanced.
Maybe our creditors need to do this before they lend this country any more money.

I have a reasonable expectation of what I’m going to be making every year. I make have to have budget my money to make sure that I’m not spending than I expect to make in order to avoid bankruptcy. I budget according to my weekly pay check.

I get paid weakly. Very weakly.:)

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 14, 2013 7:24 PM
Comment #360455

Ron wrote; “In order to get the loan we had to show that the store was making enough money to not only cover the loan payments but the other expenses also.”

Of course that is the responsible thing for a bank to do. I have written before that if the government were an individual or corporation asking for a bank loan they would be refused by their own banking regulations.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 14, 2013 7:39 PM
Comment #360457

I think we’ve discussed this before.

1)No more borrowing, not even if we need it, like for a war, or for a natural disaster.

2) An instant one trillion dollar plus hit to a fifteen trillion dollar economy. We’re not talking a recession as the sequestration cuts hit over a matter of months, we’re talking an immediate end to enough spending in order to cover both debt service and the amount of money we can no longer pay, due to the end of our authority to borrow.

3) The hit would come to our borrowing capability anyways. As a relatively poor person, I can tell you that you don’t just get hit for the debts you fail to pay, you also get hit for the bills for current services you fail to pay. If America suddenly isn’t good for all its obligated itself to pay for, it’s no longer as good for paying off its debts as it once was, even if it continues to pay them. After all, it will experience political pressure to pay its current obligations instead of its debts.

This is just not a good way to bargain, because there is no real benefit for either compromising, or not compromising. Democrats have no reason to help the Republicans succeed at their expense, to give in to this blackmail.

Quit trying to push policy your party doesn’t have the numbers, the offices, or the majorities to pass. Recognize that while the constitution allows you influence, we get to participate in our government, too. You do not get to get your fantasy budgets just because you got control of the House.

Quit putting our country at risk.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2013 8:02 PM
Comment #360458

Stephen

Simply pass a budget so that we can see what the president plans to spend and borrow. If you have budget, you can see what you might need. Successful people have budgets; successful firms have budgets; successful governments have budgets.

Obama is like the drunken spouse who just wants to spend w/o any limit.

Posted by: C&J at January 14, 2013 8:07 PM
Comment #360459

I think Stephen has it wrong as to who is putting this country at risk. We need responsible people to put limits on our spending so that requires putting responsible people in congress which we don’t have. Remer’s vote out incumbents is looking pretty good now. Stephen has us to believe Democrats are the answer to all our problems.LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 8:27 PM
Comment #360461

C&J-
You know any budget you want to pass has to go throught both chambers and past the President’s desk. You haven’t bargained in good faith, instead, you’ve run a protection racket with your majority in the house. We tried to pass a budget for 2010, but your side filibustered that, putting an end to that effort so you could play government shutdown the next year.

I’m sick to death of being blamed for your party’s bad attitude, it’s unwillingness to admit that it is only part of a representative Republic.

When we were given the chance, and didn’t have to deal with a procedural roadblock, we passed a budget! And I bet we’d do so each time, without the filibuster being involved.

Your side, meanwhile, knowing its part of a divided government, has decided to play games instead of putting together a unified budget through negotiation that can pass both houses and be signed off on by the President.

It has not passed a regular budget by regular means at all. So you have absolutely no room to criticize.

As for spending without limit, Obama could have demagogued for more. He negotiated a lower number, though, on the stimulus. He could have funded his healthcare law on new deficit spending, but he didn’t.

Too many of the things you say are things you say just to paint Obama a certain way, whether or not they’re backed by the merits. Spending increases under Obama are considerably lower than under Bush.

You shouldn’t be taken seriously when you say things like that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2013 8:42 PM
Comment #360464

Go ahead. Don’t raise the debt limit. You popularity just keeps imploding. Distorting the truth only works for so long. Unfortunately for the Republicans/conservatives, the jig is up.

You can argue, whine about it, and deny it… In fact, we know full well you will. I apologize in advance for the schadenfreude.

Posted by: LibRick at January 14, 2013 8:48 PM
Comment #360466

KAP-
It’s a borrowing limit. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near a balanced budget, so we won’t be able to simply stop borrowing by not renewing the limit on borrowing.

It’s time to stop trying to do this with shortsighted extortion schemes. It’s time to repair our economy, and on that footing repair the fiscal situation in a careful, responsible away. It’s time to end the stupid stunts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 14, 2013 9:04 PM
Comment #360467

Stephen,I agree it’s time to repair our economy, and fiscal situation in a careful responsible way. And end the stupid stunts. I sure know YOUR PEOPLE don’t have a clue on how to do it, if YOUR PEOPLE did it would have been on it’s way to repair by now. But alas the mean ole republicans got in YOUR PEOPLES way to YOUR utopia, now didn’t they. LOLOLOLOL

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 9:14 PM
Comment #360468

By the way Stephen It’s SPENDING. If YOUR PEOPLE didn’t spend so much we wouldn’t have to borrow. That goes for Bush to.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 9:17 PM
Comment #360469

Stephen

The House acted. The Senate and the President didn’t make any counter proposals. They just did nothing but complain.

The fact that we are debating raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Posted by: C&J at January 14, 2013 9:25 PM
Comment #360470

Hey Jack, wasn’t it one of Obama’s Senate speechs when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit saying it’s a “Sign of leadership failure.” Bit of Hypocricy here now.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 9:38 PM
Comment #360471

“It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.”

Wrong. 100% dead wrong. Not just wrong in opinion or wrong in philosophy. Wrong in the real world. Wrong IN FACT. If the US were unable to pay its bills, we would have to pay high interest rates in order to finance the debt. In fact, the opposite is true. Interest rates are at historic lows. Large investors, both foreign and domestic, continue to purchase US debt, and treat it as a safe haven whenever there is a flight to safety.

Raising the debt ceiling means agreeing to pay what we’ve already spent. Congress authorized those expenditures. Refusing to raise the ceiling means the expenditures were authorized, but we’re not going to honor them. That means defaulting on the full faith and credit.

So… a lot of people became so embarrassed to be called ‘Republicans’ that they started calling themselves members of ‘The Tea Party.’ Now that Tea Partiers are even more unpopular and discredited than their original party- and hoo boy, did that take some doing- what next? If the extremists in the Republican House default on the debt or shut down much of the government, will they re-fashion themselves as something new in order to escape the blame yet again?

How about The Birch Party? Birchers… Perfect.

Posted by: phx8 at January 14, 2013 9:48 PM
Comment #360472

Phx8

You think what I wrote above is stupid or wrong? I thought it was very elegant and should represent what people on both sides SHOULD think.

Posted by: C&J at January 14, 2013 9:54 PM
Comment #360474

C&J,
The federal government is absolutely capable of paying its bills. Period.

Posted by: phx8 at January 14, 2013 10:19 PM
Comment #360475

Then why raise the debt limit phx8, according to Obama we will default on most everything no pay checks, no social security, is Obama using scare tactics again?

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 10:38 PM
Comment #360477

Do you know what the debt ceiling is, KAP?

Posted by: phx8 at January 14, 2013 10:56 PM
Comment #360478

Do you phx8, your the one who says the feds are absolutly capable of paying it’s bills, Obama says otherwise. So who’s feeding the line of bull you or Obama.

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 11:02 PM
Comment #360480

You don’t even know what it is, do you?

Posted by: phx8 at January 14, 2013 11:20 PM
Comment #360481

If according to you the feds can pay their debts. Why then does Obama need to raise the ceiling to borrow more. So who is feeding us the line of bull you or Obama?

Posted by: KAP at January 14, 2013 11:28 PM
Comment #360483

KAP,
The debt ceiling does NOT authorize more spending.

The debt ceiling allows payment of bills. It involves money previously authorized and spent by Congress. Approved expenditures.

I really dislike analogies that compare household economies to the national one, but, having said that… It’s as if you buy something and pay for it by putting $100 on a credit card. Then, when the bill comes in the mail, you refuse to pay it. Doesn’t matter that you have thousands in the bank. You refuse to pay the bill. That results in a default as far as the credit card company is concerned, and it impacts your credit rating. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, they are effectively saying ‘I okayed spending some money on a credit card, but now I’m not going to pay my credit card bill. I can pay it. But I won’t.’

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2013 12:03 AM
Comment #360484

Hostage taking is repugnant in any form. You can’t give in to it. Let’s see if Obama has the political courage not to flinch. It would be interesting theater if the economy of the nation wasn’t at risk. This may be the defining moment of Obama’s presidency.

Posted by: Rich at January 15, 2013 12:37 AM
Comment #360485

I know the debt ceiling allows payment of bills that congress has previously authorized. You said in comment 360474 that the government is absolutely capable to pay it’s bills. So which is it can we pay our debt or not? If we are capable of paying our debt or as your analogy says we refuse to pay even though we have enough to pay it. Why then do we need to raise the ceiling for if we have enough to pay the approved expendatures. In your analogy then I guess Obama wants to refuse to pay unless he gets his way. As I stated in a previous comment that Obama stated as a freshman senator in 2006 that raising the debt ceiling is a sign of failed leadership and voted against raising the debt ceiling. Is Obama then a hypocrit? He also said in his first term campaign speech that Bush’s 9T debt was unpatriotic, is Obama again a hypocrit with an almost 17T debt?

Posted by: KAP at January 15, 2013 12:45 AM
Comment #360486

The only reason the Democrats want to raise the debt limit is so they can spend even more money. They don’t care about the $16 trillion we already owe. Or that their barrow and spend policies are going to ruin the economy.
All they care about is getting as much from the taxpayers as they can and spending even more. Then barrow and spend even more.

phx8
If raising the debt limit doesn’t authorize spending more money then why does Obama and the Democrats spend more? In less than a year they’ve blown through the last raise of the debt ceiling.

If Congress would take a good look at the waste in spending and cut it there wouldn’t be any need to raise the debt ceiling.

I know where we could make some serious cuts and save a whole heap of money.
YEARLY WAGES FOR:
US President………………………………..$450,000 for life
Representative/Senator………………….$174,000 for life
Speaker of the House……………………..$235,500 for life
Majority/Minority Leader……………….$194,400 for life
Average Soldier deployed to Afghanistan……$38,000 a year
Average senior on social Security…………$12,000 for life

Why should these idiots make that kind of money for life when our troops are making only $38,000 a year? And then get the shaft when they get home.

Rich
Hostage taking is repugnant in any form. You can’t give in to it. Let’s see if Obama has the political courage not to flinch. It would be interesting theater if the economy of the nation wasn’t at risk. This may be the defining moment of Obama’s presidency.

Obama needs to do the same thing he finally did with the fiscal cliff deal. Shut his fly trap, get out of the way, and let Congress work out a deal.
I don’t think the Republicans are as opposed to raising the debt ceiling as they are to his arrogance and my way or no way attitude.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 15, 2013 1:18 AM
Comment #360487

phx8

As you may have guessed already, the statement you called “Wrong. 100% dead wrong. Not just wrong in opinion or wrong in philosophy. Wrong in the real world. Wrong IN FACT.” was quoted from what Obama said when he voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator.

I guess that Obama is really stupid.

He said more, complaining that Bush has added more debt than anybody else. Of course, now that Obama himself is the record debtor, he blames others, as is his typical behavior.

I don’t think we should not raise the ceiling, but I do think we need a budget. Otherwise how do we know what we are raising. Clearly, we cannot trust Obama with out money.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2013 4:45 AM
Comment #360489

I thought passing a budget was prerequisite to raising the debt ceiling? If a budget hasn’t been passed, then the government isn’t authorized to spend any money, which means it has no business borrowing any money.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 15, 2013 7:24 AM
Comment #360490

The debt limit is a delegation of financing authority from Congress to the Treasury. It has always been about the financing side. I find it ironic that conservatives here bitch about there being no budget, but do not take a few seconds to realize that what budgetary work has been done is what actually authorizes the spending. This just authorizes paying for it, when it’s not out of tax dollars.

I know some have engaged in political theatre over this, but in the long history of this particular law, nobody has been stupid enough, politically pickled enough, to actually think that seriously impeding this is a good idea, much less provoking a default.

Foreclosures are a kind of default. Have they been kind to the economy? If a student defaults, is that good for the economy? If you default on your car, it gets repossessed.

Ordinarily, Republicans would be in the mix, moralizing left and right about how people should not abandon their responsibilities. Their argument on the whole housing collapse thing, in fact, is that in order to get votes, and please constituents, Democrats forced the housing sector to make loans to people who couldn’t pay them back.

So, ordinarily, Republicans say that not paying back your loans is a terrible things. But for the sake of politics, they’re willing to indulge in the ultimate contradiction of that principle, by either provoking a failure to pay our current obligations (who knew Republicans liked welching on paying your bills), or by failing to pay debts.

We hear talk of government shutdowns, of letting Sequesters remain… is their any kind of responsibility that Republicans are willing to take for government finance, or are they just so blisteringly hard headed in their pursuit of smaller government, that they’re willing to destroy the economy to do it?

Conservatives should be like doctors: First do no harm! The should be the preservers of our nation’s institutions, of its credit and credibility. They used to be a party that represented strength in the economy and in the military. But now down they’ve squander both political advantages, and look to redeem themselves by these insane theatrics. They’re doing more damage to themselves than Democrats like myself could do by ourselves.

What I see here is Republicans being so intent on defeating Obama and the Democrats, so intent on finally realizing their fantasies, instead of having to filter their expectations through reality like they’ve had to do for so long, that they’ve become like a cult. Everything the party wants is for the best, no questioning, just rationalization.

And the entry above is just the worst kind of rationalization.

If America can’t pay the bills it has promised to pay, then it won’t deserve, nor get the low, especially historically low rates on its financing. We will see higher interest rates, higher premiums on borrowing, simply because one party had to make what was not difficult, what was not a problem, a huge problem for America.

Long story short, any idea of defaulting on America’s debt is plainly and simply borrowing trouble for America’s economy, America’s defense, and America’s existing debt. It might force smaller government, but it will force a much smaller economy with it, the private sector suffering because of the unreliability of both the dollar and treasury bonds, once the standard of safety for the world.

Is there any place where the Republicans are not willing to squander the world’s faith in America’s greatness? Is this the supposedly greater, more superior patriotism, and honoring of the founding fathers that the Tea Party provides?

The framers did what they had to do to honor America’s debts. But that seems to be too much for the Republican morons on capital hill, and it seems all too many folks on the right here just mindless get their back on this most irresponsible and immoral of extortionary behavior.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2013 8:14 AM
Comment #360491

Here are links to the federal budgets passed by Congress for the United States of America during the Obama era, yes this US of A where we live, where we are told by conservatives this hasn’t happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/08/federal-budget-deal-government-shutdown_n_846614.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Timely post C&J. I just saw Gobama on the TV telling the teabaggers in Congress to pound sand up their asses instead of trying to hold the full faith and credit off the USA hostage. Most Americans support this. the drama from the last go around of conservative BS probably still fresh in their minds.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 15, 2013 8:30 AM
Comment #360492

C&J-
Obama’s not stupid. Who do you think people believe is more responsible? Who do you think people believe is causing the trouble? Who do you think people have seen do very little good for them, but a whole lot of harm for the country.

Republicans are the stupid ones. They think they can force their agenda at gunpoint, and not lose popularity. It’s very rare in a movie that a hostage taker is shown sympathetically. At best, some get shown as pathetic desperate, irrational men. At worst, they tend to be the villains, who just aren’t well-adjusted or smart enough to get what they want through socially acceptable means.

And people tend to have no problem with the good guys defeating the hostage takers, ending the tension and the threat they pose.

You think you’re negotiating from strength. No, you’re negotiation from desperation and weakness. You’re negotiating as a party that does not have both sides of Congress, and thus has to pull ridiculous stunts like this in order to avoid compromise that might dishearten people who have been stirred up into a ridiculous level of opposition to compromise. You’re negotiating as people who, if they are so dumb as to provoke a failure to pay all America’s obligations, past, present, and future, won’t be able to get elected Dogcatcher.

Your only leverage is suicidal, and the more you use it, the more you threaten it, the more your party marginalizes itself. This is the corner you’ve painted yourself into. Real good negotiators could walk in with a pen and a smile, and get what they want. Criminals, morons, and desperate men are the ones who resort to having to use force like this.

You reveal your weakness in the extremity and desperation of your tactics. You do not behave like people confident in their own power, you behave like people who are afraid to lose what they once had. Hell, like people who are rightly afraid that they’ve lost what they once had, and people who do not know how to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, and be influential, even where they are not utterly in control. You know, once you stop with these extortionary tactics, that you won’t have much other leverage.

Unfortunately, now Barack Obama knows this, understands this, after having won an election handily. He sees that the nation hasn’t turned as dramatically to the right as it seems, and that your movement’s time as the dominant political force is waning. Hell, even in 2011, he had already realized that to some extent, the Republicans had neither the numbers nor the unity to force their agenda on you, and he was able to kick the can down the road.

If you really had power, if Obama wasn’t smart, you would have won. But unfortunately, if you pick suicidal means of negotiation, then your own sense of self-preservation holds you back. And it should! Obama won’t put down the gun, like any cop in real life. He won’t leave himself disarmed in the face of those armed against him.

It’s all on you guys, and it seems like you are doing exactly what Obama would want you to do in order to make your party, not his, your part of the government, not him, look like its failing to carry out its responsibilities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 15, 2013 8:34 AM
Comment #360493

The Republicans will ultimately fold on the debt ceiling, and shouldn’t even try to get spending cuts. The politics are against them.

Hagel will get confirmed as Sec. of Defense, and already wants the miltary budget cut. The Republicans should take the sequester as the only means of having some social program cuts in spending, since the defense cuts will come anyway. Both cuts are likely warranted and we will live throught them just fine.

They should then pass a budget and send it to the Senate. Let them do their job. It’s likely that they won’t pass a budget. Hold the line with continuing resolutions to the previous year spending levels. That’s the only realistic scenario for the next 4 years. In 4 years, holding spending to the same level will help the deficit.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at January 15, 2013 9:41 AM
Comment #360496
In 4 years, holding spending to the same level will help the deficit.

Actually, it won’t. That’s the problem.

Here are links to the federal budgets passed by Congress

Sorry, those aren’t budgets, they are continuing resolutions. By not passing a budget the senate is in violation of the law. You may not appreciate the differences, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

BTW, I love how the progressives do what they accuse the conservatives of doing, distorting the facts for political gain…

The facts, the debt ceiling is not about ‘defaulting’ on anything. It simply states that the US is not allowed to BORROW money in order to pay the bills, not that the bills can’t get paid. There are other ways to pay the bills, but since the progressives don’t LIKE them, they apparently don’t exist.

Don’t worry, the media will keep reporting things they way you want to, the Daily Show will still pound on Republicans one-sidedly and keep the hipsters on your side, not realizing how it is going to be making their lives harder, not ours…

The reality is that this is all show on both sides, no one will do anything to address anything of real substance, once again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2013 10:33 AM
Comment #360498
Put aside the picture of leading lawmakers, usually so jealous of their constitutional prerogatives, asking the president to ignore Congress. What is striking about the letter is that every one of its signers — Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray — voted against raising the nation’s debt ceiling just seven years ago.

On March 16, 2006, the Senate held a vote on a measure to raise the debt ceiling by $781 billion — the fourth such vote of George W. Bush’s presidency. Republicans controlled the Senate, and Democrats spent much of the debate railing against Bush’s spending. “When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records,” said Reid. “The three largest deficits in our nation’s history have all occurred under this administration’s watch.”

Declaring themselves outraged by such spending, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray all voted against raising the debt limit. So did every other Democrat — including Sen. Barack Obama. But on Friday, the four lawmakers urged now-President Obama not only to raise the ceiling but to do it in a constitutionally risky fashion by going over the head of Congress.

It’s really like watching the same game played over again with different names for the teams…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2013 10:37 AM
Comment #360499
The White House has informed House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that it will miss the legal deadline for sending a budget to Congress.

Acting Budget Director Jeff Zients told Ryan in a letter delivered Friday that the budget will not be delivered by Feb. 4, as required by law.

Zients blamed the delay on the late passage of the “fiscal cliff” deal, and wrote that the administration is “working diligently on our budget request.”

Under the law, President Obama must submit a budget by the first Monday in February, but he has met the deadline only once. The annual budget submission is supposed to start a congressional budgeting process, but that has also broken down. The Senate last passed a budget resolution in 2009.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/276969-obama-budget-delayed-again-white-house-tells-paul-ryan#ixzz2I3lbG4Kp

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 15, 2013 10:49 AM
Comment #360507

Stephen

Just let’s repeat what I wrote above. - The fact that we are debating raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2013 2:49 PM
Comment #360509

The problem with the Senate trying to pass a budget is that Republicans hold the Senate hostage through filibusters and bill-killing amendments. The Republicans gripe about Harry Reid’s stifling of amendments, but the truth is that many of the amendments put forth by Republicans are added on solely to keep the bill from passing.

So we have what we have now.

Like I say. Go ahead, Republicans. Refuse to raise the debt limit. See what happens. Bluff called.

Posted by: LibRick at January 15, 2013 3:59 PM
Comment #360510

librick

Has Harry Reid brought a budget to a vote?

Re Filibuster - I suggested at a time when Democrats were filibustering that the Senate actually make the person filibuster, like in Mr Smith goes to Washington. That would make it more dramatic and more serious.

Posted by: C&J at January 15, 2013 4:16 PM
Comment #360511

Stephen

“It’s a borrowing limit. Unfortunately, we are nowhere near a balanced budget, so we won’t be able to simply stop borrowing by not renewing the limit on borrowing.”

No Stephen but we can require a signed budget before authorizing any more borrowing. Obamas demand that we must authorize new borrowing and then we’ll talk about fixing the problem is asinine, and childish to boot. No responsible adult operates that way, and certainly not a president.

Obama and the democrats have no intention of cutting spending, and by cutting spending I don’t mean just cutting the size of the proposed sending increases for the comming fiscal year.


C&J said

“The House passed budgets each of the last two years; the Senate failed to act.”


Stephen, why is this? These are not the actions of a resonsible senate leadership. The responsible thing would have been to amend it to their liking, and send it back to the house. Saying we don’t like it. Send us another one, or we won’t act is irresponsible and childish to say the least.

Posted by: dbs at January 15, 2013 4:28 PM
Comment #360513

“They’ve got to find, in the House, a totally new strategy. For example, everybody’s now talking about okay now comes the debt ceiling. I think that’s, frankly, now a dead loser because in the end, you know what’s going to happen. The whole national financial system is going to come into Washington, by television, and say, ‘Oh my God, this would be a gigantic heart attack. The entire economy of the world will collapse. You guys can’t be responsible.’ And they’ll cave.”
Newt Gingrich, 1/4/13

The most likely scenario will be a replay of the ‘fiscal cliff’ fiasco. Boehner will bring it to a vote, and a minority of Repubicans will join Democrats in raising the ceiling. Result? Big win for the Obama administration.

It was always a stupid fight to pick, right from the word ‘go.’ In the end, conservative suicide bombers will not kill the hostage. They’ll only blow up themselves. Which is as it should be.

Posted by: phx8 at January 15, 2013 5:53 PM
Comment #360514

Stephen
Obama’s not stupid.

That’s debatable. But I’ll wait for someone to blog about that before I debate it.


Who do you think people believe is more responsible?

I don’t know who most folks think is more responsible. But I can assure you it ain’t the Democrats that’s more responsible. At least they ain’t right now. Their tax and spend and borrow and spend policies are way out of control. Obama has doubled the the national debt in less than 3 years. He’s insisted on wasting billions on stimulus packages that ain’t done a thing but get us deeper in debt. And now he wants to waste even more of our money on more stimulus packages for his cronies. And the Democrats are willing to go along with it.
I don’t call that being responsible.


Who do you think people believe is causing the trouble?

If they’d stop and take a good look they’d know it’s both sides of the isle.


Who do you think people have seen do very little good for them, but a whole lot of harm for the country.

All 537 of our employees.


j2
What good is it to raise the debt ceiling if Obama is just going to blow through it in a few months? I was watching the noon news today and they said that we’re going to reach the debt ceiling that Congress approved last January sooner than expected.
We need to do something. But just rising the debt ceiling without spending cuts makes no more sense than Obama insist on spending more and more money.
I think all the Republicans are asking for is spending cuts along with the rise of the debt ceiling. They know it has to be raised, and they will most likely go along with some kind of raise. But they want to see some spending cuts along with it. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
If anyone is holding America hostage on the debt ceiling it’s the Democrats this time by refusing to go along with some spending cuts.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 15, 2013 5:59 PM
Comment #360515

phx8 reminds us…”Raising the debt ceiling means agreeing to pay what we’ve already spent. Congress authorized those expenditures.”

Correct. Some congress in the past did the authorizing. The current congress can alter, diminish, or eliminate that authorization.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 15, 2013 6:01 PM
Comment #360516

phx8
The most likely scenario will be a replay of the ‘fiscal cliff’ fiasco. Boehner will bring it to a vote, and a minority of Repubicans will join Democrats in raising the ceiling. Result? Big win for the Obama administration.

Of course the Republicans will cave. They don’t want the country to default on our debt.
What I’d like to see is for Obama to shut up and get out of the way so Congress can make some sort of deal. He did it with the fiscal cliff and a deal got cut. If he’ll do it now Congress just might be able to cut a deal before the last minute.
It’s his flapping his gums that’s holding up things now.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 15, 2013 6:13 PM
Comment #360522

OK, specifically, what spending do you want to cut, by what amount, when and what will be the impact on the deficit/debt and the economy?

Posted by: Rich at January 15, 2013 9:57 PM
Comment #360524
What good is it to raise the debt ceiling if Obama is just going to blow through it in a few months?

Well just off the top of my head Ron it will keep the credit rating of the country intact. We will not default on the debts already authorized by Congress. During the Reagan administration the debt ceiling was raised 18 times. GWB 8 times yet you didn’t hold them not the country hostage. The time to deal with the debt is when times are good not when we are recovering from a financial meltdown. You guys blew it when you voted to run up the debt, the budget and the government during the goods times Ron, I mean really are you wanting a depression?


I was watching the noon news today and they said that we’re going to reach the debt ceiling that Congress approved last January sooner than expected.
We need to do something.

Why not let the cuts that were put in place the last “debt crisis” take effect? 18 times under Reagan without an appeal by conservatives to cut spending. Eight under GWB. You guys have no moral high ground.


But just rising the debt ceiling without spending cuts makes no more sense than Obama insist on spending more and more money.

It makes sense Ron. In fact not raising the debt ceiling makes no sense. The kind of cuts conservatives are calling for make no sense Ron. It is ideological drivel. The baby boomers are retiring by the thousands daily Ron. Cutting SS now is illogical, throwing boomers into the streets and turning their homes over to the banks makes no sense Ron. The only thing to cut is the military budget.

“The GAO cited as the principal obstacle to its provision of an audit opinion ‘serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements unauditable’.[7] The GAO identified during its audit work an estimated $125.4 billion of ‘improper payments’.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

Posted by: j2t2 at January 16, 2013 12:27 AM
Comment #360543

Rich

The budget is the thing that would determine what to cut and what to spend. That is why we need a budget. Politicians who want to just spend (like Obama) do not want a budget any more than your irresponsible kid wants to give up his credit card.

What Obama wants to do (and is succeeding) is to make everything a very public political issue. He is being very un-presidential and showing terrible leadership skills. In fact he is true to the form I have written many times. He is a great political guy, especially when on the attack but a bad leader where he needs to do something in the real world.

We need a budget to tell us what we should and should not be spending. With no budget, Obama can just keep on spending and keep on creating debts, and then he complains that we have to pay the bills we racked up.

Obama is really like the kid with the credit card. Unfortunately, he is appealing to some in the electorate who are also kids with credit cards. He can speak to them. Our country’s future is in danger. This current debt ceiling is a matter of choice. The time will come when we really don’t have the capacity to easily borrow more.

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2013 4:40 AM
Comment #360545

j2t2

“Well just off the top of my head Ron it will keep the credit rating of the country intact.”

No it won’t. The rating agencies have also said that there needs to be mid term plan of action in place to adress the debt issue or the down grade could occur anyway.

Posted by: dbs at January 16, 2013 5:31 AM
Comment #360547

j2
I know the debt ceiling has to be raised. But it’s not going to help our credit rating any. It’s been down graded once because of Obama’s borrow and spend policies. And there’s a very good chance it’ll get down graded again if Congress doesn’t rein in Obama.
I have no problem with letting any cuts already in place taking effect. Obama and the Senate seem to though. If they didn’t they would have already take place.
Cutting SS benefits doesn’t make any sense. And the Republicans [not conservatives] are wrong on this. If that’s where they want to cuts. I have heard anything on the news about where they want to make the cuts. I think y’all are just assuming that’s where they want to make them. Y’all are just using the idea of seniors being thrown out onto the streets as a fear tactic.
There y’all go again. Don’t cut spending anywhere but the military. Every time the subject of spending cuts come up that’s the first thing out of the Liberal’s mouths. Do y’all really hate the military so much folks that y’all want to take the equipment they need away from the folks that protect your freedom to talk about military budget cuts? Do y’all really want to see more body bags coming home from Afghanistan and Africa?
There’s plenty of room to cut spending in every item in the budget. And yes, that includes Social Security.
What needs to be done is instead of taking money away from departments that don’t use their whole budget, is reward the departments for not using all of it.
One of my uncles worked for the Department of Agriculture as the purchasing agent for the office he was in. Every year his office would get 10 times the money it needed to operate. At the end of the year he was told to make sure that every penny for that year was spent or they’d lose it the next year. In order to do this he’d have to buy things that most likely would never be used. He said his office of 13 had enough trash cans that every person in it could have 200 of them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2013 9:13 AM
Comment #360548

Wow Ron threats from the same crowd that told us the big banks risky investments were good risks! You trust them to provide reliable information yet discount the people in the Obama administration to do the right thing, go figure.

Well you must be right I guess we should just let the teabaggers define fiscal policy seeings as they did such a good job the first time around,NOT! It is time to recognize them for the extremist they are. The same people who thought nation building in Iraq at the expense of our tax dollars was a good idea, now want to destroy the economy with voodoo austerity economic policy already proven to not work. They spout freedom and liberty but they hold us hostage, don’t be fooled by your movement leaders Ron, think for yourself.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 16, 2013 9:18 AM
Comment #360550

The ball is in your court, C&J. Are you going to give up the hostage (debt ceiling)? Are you going to allow the temporarily delayed sequestration cuts to go into effect? If not, what are your alternative budget proposals for the remainder of FY 2013 and going forward?

So, once again, what exactly are your proposals?

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2013 10:49 AM
Comment #360553

j2
Threats? Just what the hell are you talking about? Do you respond to folks that disagree with you now by claiming they’re threatening ya?

Did you ever here me claim that risky investments are good? That’s why I opposed the bank bailouts. They got themselves into the mess, they should have been made to get themselves out.

And yes,I do discount everything I hear from Obama and gang. Just like I discount everything I here from the Republicans and the Tea Party. All are very unreliable.
I’ve thought for myself all my life. That’s why I’m an independent and not some party hack blindly spouting some party’s garbage like some kind of mind numbed robot. You might want to try it sometime.

I don’t have any ‘movement leaders’ and never have since I don’t and never have belonged to any ‘movement’.

And just what the hell is wrong with austerity in federal spending? If it had been practiced for the last 237 years we wouldn’t be in the big old shit pie we’re in. If any time is the time to start getting practicing it, it’s now. And how has austerity been proven not to work? If anything the spendthrift policies that’s been practiced over the last 4 years are proven not to work. Specially when they lead to doubling the national debt without anything to show for it.

I’ve asked you several times and you never answer it. Why do y’all hate the military so much that the only budget y’all want to cut it the military budget?
Are you afraid to answer it?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2013 1:49 PM
Comment #360554

BTWj2, I’m one of them baby boomers. I know we’re retiring at a fast rate. We’ve put in our time at the grinding wheel. It’s time for to start stepping aside and let the younger folks have their crack at wearing that thing out.
I’m seriously thinking about retiring myself. I can find plenty of thing on the farm to keep me active.
The worse thing to do is retire and go out and sit on the front porch all day.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2013 2:07 PM
Comment #360555
They spout freedom and liberty but they hold us hostage, don’t be fooled by your movement leaders Ron, think for yourself.

At least the progressives don’t spout freedom and liberty, they have no interest in such things. So there is no hypocrisy coming from that direction…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 2:17 PM
Comment #360558

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2012

The federal gov’t has spent more than it’s taken in for the last 17 of 21 years.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 16, 2013 2:44 PM
Comment #360562
The federal gov’t has spent more than it’s taken in for the last 17 of 21 years.

It’s actually 21 of 21 years, when you look at total numbers, not just ‘on budget’ or ‘public debt’ numbers… Those reported surpluses relied on borrowing money from the SS trust fund and other pension funds, etc…

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 3:20 PM
Comment #360563

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush’s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton’s last budget, that still means that Clinton’s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn’t leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself—mostly borrowing money from social security.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/clip/3666049

Fritz Hollings (DEM) gets it right in 1999

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 3:25 PM
Comment #360566

“We will not default on the debts already authorized by Congress.”

Congress does not authorize debt, but instead, it authorizes spending. If one gets that clear in their mind, it is easier to understand that a sitting congress can change its mind about the spending authorized by a previous congress.

Very little of our federal spending goes towards fulfillment of the governments duties under the constitution. The majority of spending is arbitrary and deliberated by congress. Even entitlement programs were created by congress not our constitution.

The current congress can cut back on previously authorized spending. That is not the same as defaulting on our debt.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 3:44 PM
Comment #360567

Rhinehold,

You are basically correct. From a unified budget perspective, the Clinton administration achieved surpluses in the fiscal years 1998-2001. However, when off-budget expenditures and revenues (principally SS) are excluded, it achieved surpluses only in the fiscal years of 1999 and 2000 with a 0.3% deficit in 1998 and 2001. Nonetheless, a pretty good record.

It should also be remembered that the same point about the federal fiscal year also applies to Obama. Conservatives frequently attribute the huge deficit of FY2009 to Obama. In reality, it is the last fiscal year of the Bush administration.

It seems to me that in all discussions of the federal budget, it would be helpful to separate on-budget from off-budget items (trust funds). The charts are readily available and, technically, there is no such thing as a unified budget anymore.

It is particularly annoying to me to see federal expenditures expressed in this manner. It distorts significantly the source of current deficits. Such an approach vastly overstates the role of the off-budget entitlement outlays in the current deficits and understates the contribution of defense/wars, economic related expenditures and income tax revenue policies.

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2013 4:50 PM
Comment #360568

Rich, no, there was never any surpluses, not even 1999 or 2000. Sorry, but the facts are the facts.

Here are the numbers:

End of FY 1997 our total debt was $5.413146T
End of FY 1998 our total debt was $5.526193T
End of FY 1999 our total debt was $5.656270T
End of FY 2000 our total debt was $5.674178T
End of FY 2001 our total debt was $5.807463T

You say that there were surpluses in 1999 and 2000, yet when you look at our total debt numbers, they increased. This is not a possibility if we were running surpluses.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 4:57 PM
Comment #360569
It seems to me that in all discussions of the federal budget, it would be helpful to separate on-budget from off-budget items

The problem with that is all that an administration or congress has to do is label certain spending as ‘off budget’, and then just pretend we are not spending as much as we were. The fact is that that ‘off budget’ money is still being spent and the American people should know how and where it is being spent. Hiding it makes the problem worse, not better.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 4:59 PM
Comment #360570

BTW, don’t just take my word for it, look up the numbers for yourself. They are readily available at the US Treasury website here:http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Select the end of FY dates (September 30) and compare the numbers, you will see just as I have posted, the numbers increased during these years we ‘ran a surplus’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 5:01 PM
Comment #360571

Liberals have a distinct dislike for cutting spending. It seems like the unpardonable sin to them. The idea of a balanced budget is reprehensible to them. They believe that power comes from deficit spending. And the bigger the deficit the more power they have.
They don’t understand/care that deficit spending will eventually cause the country to default on it’s debts.To them it ain’t nothing that raising taxes won’t cure. The problem is what are they gonna do when everyone is taxed a 100% to pay for their huge deficits? Print more money? We’re doing that now and it’s threatening to cause either inflation to skyrocket or the dollar to be devalued. Which will cause inflation to skyrocket.
We’re borrowing 46 cent of every dollar we spend. But the only answer the liberals can come up with is borrow more and spend more. They don’t understand/care that voodoo economics like this only leads to our credit rating being lowered because our debt to income ratio to high. This causes us to have to borrow at a higher rate of interest because we’re considered a credit risk.
I have to wonder, do Liberals treat their personal finances like this?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2013 5:04 PM
Comment #360573

Ron wrote; “They don’t understand/care that voodoo economics like this only leads to our credit rating being lowered because our debt to income ratio to high.”

Of course you are correct Ron. I have yet to read any liberal argue with my oft repeated statement that…if the US government were an individual or corporation, it would be denied additional credit based upon current banking regulations.

We should all know and appreciate how an individuals credit score is derived. One of the major considerations is any default of payments, and another is debt to income ratio and percent of credit available to that being used.

With a top score of 850, considered “Excellent”, I believe the US would have a score of around 670 considered “Good”.

I would ask my liberal friends to tell us how much credit do they believe is available to the US. Is it $20, $30, $50 Trillion…or more?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 5:21 PM
Comment #360574

Royal Flush,

I don’t think anybody disagrees with you that the current Congress could rescind spending authorization previously enacted. But, that is not what the Republicans are threatening. They don’t have the power to ram such a recission through the senate and sustain a presidential veto. So, they are threatening to force a default on authorized spending if the President and the Senate will not agree to future spending cuts and a budget of their desire. Pay the ransom or we will shoot the hostage.

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2013 5:25 PM
Comment #360575

Ron,
The problem with making an analogy between personal finance and government spending is that there are so many differences. The government prints its own money. You can, but please, make sure you don’t get caught! Unlike most of us, the government determines its own income through tax rates and revenues.

At the end of Clinton’s second term, the $5 trillion was projected to become a $10 trillion surplus in ten years. A study was commissioned on whether it was a good idea to pay off all debt. The conclusion? About three trillion needed to be kept on the books in order to maintain liquidity in bond markets. (Kind of like a businessman keeping a line of credit open). And remember, those projections were made at the end of that second term, after the economy slowed.

Conclusion: grow the economy, increase taxes and revenues slightly from where they are now, cut defense spending, and the debt will disappear very quickly. I really don’t think most people comprehend just how fast it can be paid down given a few simple adjustments.

The problem is that the conservatives don’t actually care about debt or deficits. They want to cut Social Security, Medicare, R&D, and so on, in order to cut taxes, regulation, and oversight.

They want all the benefits of living in America and none of the responsibilities.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2013 5:28 PM
Comment #360576

Rich

The President could decide what to spend or not. Obama does not need to default if he doesn’t choose to. There is tax money enough to cover all required spending.

I think not raising the ceiling is a bad idea, but it is also a bad idea for Obama to keep on his spending binge.

Re proposals - The House of Representatives passed a resolution. You can read it below. The Senate did not act on it or counter propose.

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf

I just think it would be a good idea for the Senate to give us a budget. It is pretty silly that Obama wants to keep on spending w/o a plan.

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2013 5:31 PM
Comment #360577

They don’t have the power to ram such a recission through the senate and sustain a presidential veto. So, they are threatening to force a default on authorized spending if the President and the Senate will not agree to future spending cuts and a budget of their desire. Pay the ransom or we will shoot the hostage.
Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2013 5:25 PM

Perhaps you are correct, however; the House can pass legislation reducing spending levels of future, current, and past legislation. If the Senate and obama reject it, let them propose something else. The House should not be seen as threatening a default if they pass legislation that only reduces spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 5:33 PM
Comment #360578

“I really don’t think most people comprehend just how fast it can be paid down given a few simple adjustments.”

I really don’t think the author begins to understand how much $17 Trillion really is.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 5:36 PM
Comment #360584

Royal Flush,
The assumptions from the Clinton era showed we would have paid down the $5 trillion in debt in the time, and generated an additional $10 trillion surplus.

That’s $15 trillion over ten years.

Using the projections from the end of the Clinton era, and positing a modestly healthy economy, a cut in defense spending, and a very modest across-the-board tax hike, and, assuming we’ll keep at least $3 trillion in debt in order to keep bond markets functioning…

It would take less than 10 years.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions there. No, this isn’t the year 2000, and we can’t magically go back. Nevertheless, the exercise gives some idea of just how quickly the debt can be washed away.

Posted by: phx8 at January 16, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment #360585
Threats? Just what the hell are you talking about? Do you respond to folks that disagree with you now by claiming they’re threatening ya?
The credit rating agencies Ron the credit rating agencies you refer to in the post I responded to.
I’ve asked you several times and you never answer it. Why do y’all hate the military so much that the only budget y’all want to cut it the military budget? Are you afraid to answer it?

First of all Ron I have answered it when asked before, you just don’t like the answer. I don’t hate the military I do dislike the amount we spend to “defend” ourselves. Because the military has suffered mission creep for years the budget has become bloated and the scope of their work has increased beyond the defense of the country. Perhaps not always their fault but the money we spend on the military is part of the discretionary budget it can be cut significantly without hurting the defense of the country.

Now Ron answer me this. Why do you guys hate the old and infirmed in this country, why the hatred for the disenfranchised and the mentally ill? Those in the programs you want to cut?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 16, 2013 6:18 PM
Comment #360586

phx8

Yeah, go back to the levels of government we had in 1999 and tax enough to support that, no more.

Is that on Obama’s agenda?

Posted by: C&J at January 16, 2013 6:20 PM
Comment #360587

phx8, you didn’t factor in the political penchant for spending more than the revenue collected. Do you truly expect that to change? If so…why?

If the economy was booming, and the revenue collected was hugely increased, can you tell me that politicians wouldn’t spend it rather than pay down our debt. There are always, always, always…votes to buy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 6:20 PM
Comment #360588

Rhinehold,

It is true that total debt did increase during the Clinton administration. However, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a surplus of general revenue to general expenditures.

Total debt is comprised of both public debt used to finance general deficit spending and intra-governmental debt. In the on-budget surplus years of Clinton, the debt owed to the public did decrease by the approximate amount of the surplus. However, SS also ran a surplus during those years. SS is required by law to invest in US treasuries. That necessarily results in an increase in intra-governmental debt and, hence, total debt. If the SS surplus exceeds the surplus of the general budget, total debt will rise. As long as SS runs a surplus, total debt will increase.

I am not suggesting hiding off-budget (Trust funds) items from the general public. Indeed, I am simply suggesting that both on-budget and off-budget be properly presented and their revenue and expenditures be separately identified. Mixing them together in a unified approach is very misleading and actually contrary to the law which requires separate accounting.

Posted by: Rich at January 16, 2013 6:23 PM
Comment #360589
Liberals have a distinct dislike for cutting spending. It seems like the unpardonable sin to them. The idea of a balanced budget is reprehensible to them. They believe that power comes from deficit spending. And the bigger the deficit the more power they have. They don’t understand/care that deficit spending will eventually cause the country to default on it’s debts.To them it ain’t nothing that raising taxes won’t cure. The problem is what are they gonna do when everyone is taxed a 100% to pay for their huge deficits? Print more money? We’re doing that now and it’s threatening to cause either inflation to skyrocket or the dollar to be devalued. Which will cause inflation to skyrocket. We’re borrowing 46 cent of every dollar we spend. But the only answer the liberals can come up with is borrow more and spend more. They don’t understand/care that voodoo economics like this only leads to our credit rating being lowered because our debt to income ratio to high. This causes us to have to borrow at a higher rate of interest because we’re considered a credit risk. I have to wonder, do Liberals treat their personal finances like this?

This is so much BS. And complete and utter BS like this is why our politics is in a fix today. The VAST majority of our current debt was incurred by revenue cuts and unfunded expenditures passed by GOP Houses and Senates. What’s the point of coming here if people are allowed to posit such crap? The poster makes statements of motive and position which the target of his vile spew would deny vehemently and could provide proof of plausibility otherwise.

Why don’t I just say that conservatives hate the working class and considers them chumps to be bilked? My proof of that charge is as valid as the charge laid on liberals in that worthless post.

Then we could call each other unpatriotic liars.

Eventually we could challenge each other to pistols at dawn.

Yes. I have some.

The stench here is awful.

Posted by: LibRick at January 16, 2013 6:25 PM
Comment #360590

OK Lib…separate fact from BS for us please.

1) Liberals have a distinct dislike for cutting spending. True or false?

2) The idea of a balanced budget is reprehensible to them. True or false?

3) They believe that power comes from deficit spending. And the bigger the deficit the more power they have. True or false?

4) They don’t understand/care that deficit spending will eventually cause the country to default on it’s debts. True or false?

5) To them it ain’t nothing that raising taxes won’t cure. True or false?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2013 6:36 PM
Comment #360597
The VAST majority of our current debt was incurred by revenue cuts and unfunded expenditures passed by GOP Houses and Senates.

Not even remotely true, the House and Senate was controlled by the DEMs in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. Where most of the debt occurred… Before they took over the deficit was almost eliminated.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 16, 2013 10:46 PM
Comment #360599

Royal
With a top score of 850, considered “Excellent”, I believe the US would have a score of around 670 considered “Good”.

I don’t know about that. With our credit rating already having been lowered and fixing to be again it most likely is around 550. “Fair” heading to Poor.

j2
Now Ron answer me this. Why do you guys hate the old and infirmed in this country, why the hatred for the disenfranchised and the mentally ill? Those in the programs you want to cut?

You’d have to ask the ‘guys’ your talking about. And that would be your fellow liberals the Republicans.
There ain’t but one person that I have ever hated in my life. And everyone like him deserves the hatred of every decent person in the world.
Believe or not I don’t even hate Obama. I disagree with him on everything. And I know he’s an idiot. But I don’t hate him. I leave hating folks to the liberals.

phx8
The problem with making an analogy between personal finance and government spending is that there are so many differences.

No there isn’t phx8. Saying there isn’t just excuses deficit spending. No one. Not even the government can keep spending more than is taken in. Y’all just want to excuse Obama’s borrow and spend even more policies when y’all make statements like that.
If just printing more money would cover what it spends the why has the government borrowed so much? Why not just say we’re going to spend $50 trillion dollars and then print it? Just think we would have to pay federal taxes.
But it doesn’t work that way. The only thing printing more money does is drive inflation and the devaluation of the dollar.

Royal
I don’t think Lib Rick or any of our other liberal friends will answer your questions. But they are good ones.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 16, 2013 11:44 PM
Post a comment