Debt Debate in Congress

[guido911]

a) His filibuster-proof majority lasted all of a few months until Kennedy fell ill.
b) Democrats are not Republicans; they rarely vote in lockstep on anything.
c) Sorry you're so offended I didn't get the joke.

Not offended, was just disappointed. I'm over it. As for the length of time of the filibuster-proof Senate, Specter switched in April 2009 and the swimmer passed away in August 2009. Scott Brown wasn't seated until January 2010. That's a nice chunk of time to do more, which in fact the dems did. And let's not forget the Maine women aren't exactly conservative and do have a penchant for doing their own thing (i.e. stimulus). I'll forgo posting Rep. Latourette's rant on how the repubs couldn't stop anything a year or so ago.

[Cats Cats Cats]

GOP won't do the 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction.  Will only do 2 trillion.  Walking out on 2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction for a few billion in tax increases. 

[we vs us]

GOP won't do the 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction.  Will only do 2 trillion.  Walking out on 2 trillion dollars in deficit reduction for a few billion in tax increases. 

Very very interesting that this happened.  Boehner obviously couldn't deliver enough votes in the House for whatever was on the table.  It means that the GOP caucus really is being driven by the no-taxes-whatsoever rump.  (I'm not sure that's truly a Tea Party plank  but it's definitely one of the newer GOP mantras). 

More intriguing:  Is it possible that Obama called the GOP bluff?  He offered some huge cuts (and for the Dems, highly objectionable) cuts to the safety net, in exchange for relatively uncontroversial revenue increases (the aforementioned jet ownership tax loophole, etc) but the GOP couldn't accept even those.  Is it possible he threw those up knowing it would prove once and for all that the GOP isn't about being sensible but is about being ideological? 

Whichever it is, the debt debate just did a 180, IMO.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Why does the GOP want us to have such high debt?  They have the power to vote on a lower deficit and they choose not to. 

[nathanm]

In other news, the House voted to increase the Pentagon's budget by $17 billion. Those House Republicans, real savers. The bill also makes it illegal for military chaplains to officiate same sex marriages and eliminates funding for training chaplains on the new policy regarding openly gay servicemembers.

[Teatownclown]

http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/07/debt-limit-debate-probably-already-is.html

You would think that, since the GOP is owned and operated by Wall Street, that they would be getting pressure from their owners to open the spigots, not close them. Not only the looming possibility of Default, but the GOP goal of cutting spending also depresses the outlook for financial health. Government spending (on non-military goods) has a multiplier effect that forms a strong current, a Gulf Stream through our economy. Cut that off, or even cut it down and the rest of the economy slows down with it. So a smart business should be worried as much about the GOP's spending-cut agenda as about Default.
Already, the austerity measures in government, particularly in the States, has cause a huge setback in employment. Last month's lousy 19000 job gain was a net gain. There actually were a lot more new jobs created, but they were offset by layoffs of State workers.

[guido911]

Here's George Will boiling it down over the dem hand-wringing over the debt ceiling.

http://www.mrctv.org/video/103512

Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?

[Gaspar]

Here's George Will boiling it down over the dem hand-wringing over the debt ceiling.

http://www.mrctv.org/video/103512

Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?

Wow!  This is turning out to be a hard lesson.

Looking at the president's proposal, he has $9.5 trillion in new borrowing and an additional $5 trillion every year after.  He's basically just pushing the same budget request he sent to congress in February.  He is also asking for several hundred billion in tax hikes on small businesses and the wealthy.  Not nearly enough to even put a dent in his spending, but more than enough to throw us back into economic decline, not to mention the psychological effect it would have on an already damaged trust between the private sector and the administration.

It is obvious that the economy is secondary in his mind to government growth.

[we vs us]

Wow!  This is turning out to be a hard lesson.

Looking at the president's proposal, he has $9.5 trillion in new borrowing and an additional $5 trillion every year after.  He's basically just pushing the same budget request he sent to congress in February.  He is also asking for several hundred billion in tax hikes on small businesses and the wealthy.  Not nearly enough to even put a dent in his spending, but more than enough to throw us back into economic decline, not to mention the psychological effect it would have on an already damaged trust between the private sector and the administration.

It is obvious that the economy is secondary in his mind to government growth.

Since you don't ever cite anything, how on earth can I believe numbers like that? Because they really seem ridiculous/pushed by your preferred RM media outlets.  From what I've seen, the banner number is $4T in deficit reduction, with a balance between cuts and tax increases.

[we vs us]

Just a thought, but if not extending the debt ceiling would be catastrophic, and if the dems think the repubs are not holding out (or any other issue), why are steps not being taken right now by the administration to mitigate a catastrophe. Shouldn't we start cutting (or just slowing) non-essential discretionary spending and entitlement programs so the impact of the catastrophe would be limited?

The debt ceiling was breached officially in May; we're now running on borrowed time, where Treasury moves accounts around, triages funds, etc.  Geithner has said repeatedly that Aug 2 is the point where we run out of rope and crucial accounts go into arrears.

[Gaspar]

Since you don't ever cite anything, how on earth can I believe numbers like that? Because they really seem ridiculous/pushed by your preferred RM media outlets.  From what I've seen, the banner number is $4T in deficit reduction, with a balance between cuts and tax increases.

He is pressing the budget recommendation he presented back in February that includes his outlays for Obamacare.  That requires 9.5 Trillion in additional borrowing and $5 trillion a year after that. Both sides of the debate seem to have taken that out of the equation.

If we kick the can, we are going to need a far larger can.

[guido911]

The debt ceiling was breached officially in May; we're now running on borrowed time, where Treasury moves accounts around, triages funds, etc.  Geithner has said repeatedly that Aug 2 is the point where we run out of rope and crucial accounts go into arrears.

If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving. 

[Hoss]

If I know that I will lose my job on Aug. 2, then I prepare for it by saving. 

Where was that thought process when we were raising the debt ceiling for two wars before this administration?  House Republicans voted to raise that ceiling 5 times.  I guess it only matters when the other guy is in the big White House.

[Gaspar]

Where was that thought process when we were raising the debt ceiling for two wars before this administration?  House Republicans voted to raise that ceiling 5 times.  I guess it only matters when the other guy is in the big White House.

I stood firmly with Senator Obama on this.  What is the point of establishing a limit if you intend to exceed it?

I'm sure Senator Obama would agree with me, we need to stop the drunken spending before we up the credit limit.  The amount of revenue increase proposed is a joke compared to planned outlays.

Show the people and the markets that you are serious about shrinking government and unbridle them as your slaves, and you will increase revenue far more than any putative tax increase.  We learned this with Kennedy, then again with ERTA, and now we have to, hopefully, learn it again (but I fear we won't).

The economy is poised for growth with businesses at the line waiting for the gun, the problem is that the president wants to point the gun at their heads, and congress wants to hide the bullets.

[guido911]

Eat your peas, Gasman.