Barack Obama’s first proposed FY 2012 budget was so ridiculous that it was voted down 97-0 in the Senate. Since then democrats have offered absolutely nothing concrete with regard to either the budget or the debt ceiling.
Now as money is running short, democrats are getting frantic about “default.” But they are more concerned with something other than default.
They are more concerned with the 2012 election than anything else.
Over the The Hill Obama flack Sam Youngman tried to convince us that Barack Obama no longer is responsible for the country:
This weekend’s turn of events have shifted the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling and reducing the deficit to Congress — and away from President Obama.
That’s amusing on many levels, but will prove costly for democrats. Neither Obama nor any democrats have offered a plan. Up to now all they have offered is criticism. The Senate voted down the only plan that was offered- a plan that supported by Americans 2 to 1.
Democrats, while whining about a lack of bipartisanship, have offered to compromise on nothing. Anyone with a lick of sense agrees that spending has to be cut- it’s not an option. The disagreement is about taxes and in that democrats offer no compromise. It’s tax increases or nothing.
Now democrats are sensing the erosion of their positions. They have offered nothing. Barack Obama has no plan, Harry Reid has no plan, Nancy Pelosi has no plan. How can they claim that a potential default is the responsibility of Republicans when they have offered absolutely nothing?
From within this cauldron a truth has risen. This fight is really not about default- it is now about the 2012 election.
The stories began to fly:
Obama Says No Short-Term Deal On Federal Debt
Then Obama sends Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner out to reiterate the postion:
Geithner: Deal must remove default threat through 2012 election
Geithner confirmed that the White House has been changing the deal all along:
GEITHNER: You know the ways negotiations work, Chris, nothing is done until everything is done.
As the WSJ points out, Obama had no interest in deficit reduction at all until recently:
Then again, it has long been clear that Mr. Obama isn’t interested in spending reform. In February he proposed a budget that spent more than any in U.S. history. In April he demanded that Congress pass a “clean” debt ceiling hike that included no spending cuts whatsoever. Only after House Republicans unveiled their own sweeping budgetary reforms did the White House rush to also claim it wanted deficit reduction as part of the debt-ceiling debate.
And they also see through Obama’s flim-flammery:
In June, the President dispatched Joe Biden to negotiate spending cuts, only to have the White House insist at the last minute that modest trims be accompanied by significant new taxes. Mr. Boehner and the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Six produced plans that would have acceded to that White House demand in exchange for substantive tax reform that would have lowered individual and corporate rates. Yet last week the White House backtracked on its agreement for the lower tax rates and demanded another $400 billion in tax revenues above the $800 billion the Speaker had already conceded.
But as the deadline approaches (and that deadline keeps moving too) things are getting so desperate that Harry Reid is actually threatening to do his job:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Sunday he is drafting a $2.7 trillion deficit reduction package that would raise the debt ceiling through 2012 after he said talks on a bipartisan deal “broke down” again with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
But again, only as cover for the 2012 election.
It is clear that democrats see this issue as a tiger trap during the 2012 elections. John Boehner should grant the President a clean debt ceiling vote- for enough to last about a year. George Bush faced seven debt ceiling votes, so asking Obama to face another one next year is neither onerous nor unreasonable. The public will see the offer of a clean vote.
Under no circumstances should any vote provide cover for democrats through the next election. That would be stupid. Boehner should put the clean vote on the table and present it to Obama and the democrats.
Let Obama veto it. Let him veto a clean vote. Call his bluff.
Let the Senate democrats refuse a clean vote.
Then we’ll see who blames who.
It’s the best of all worlds.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@Nan G, #48:
*S* You beat me to the draw on the FAA thing.
OK, I get it that the FAA is not collecting taxes anymore and the airlines just jacked up their rates an equivalent amount.
That sucks.
BUT, what if the collection of taxes could be done bypassing federal employees?
(Like FAA employees, as an example.)
Wouldn’t the government become leaner almost immediately?
@Aye, #46:
Yeah, maybe a Second Great Depression. I’m not sure it would go so well this time around. In the 1920s & 30s the U.S. was still largely a rural economy. A lot of the population could grow much of their own food to scrape by. There was also a hard currency based monetary system, which kept a stable medium of exchange in place.
@Aye:
Much isn’t written about the “1920 depression” as it wasn’t much of a depression. The depression we’re now in, and it is an economic depression, is on par with the 1930’s depression.
You can’t compare the 1920 depression with today. Europe’s economy was still in the shitter and the US was the only and last man standing.
China is the new superpower and they are preventing us from recovering.
@Greg:
Agreed. It is laughable-in the extreme- to compare the 1920’s depression to today’s depression. In fact, Germany came out of the 1930’s depression well before the US due to their public works program.
@Aye: Ever read about what happened during the Depression of 1920?
And what portion of the US population was taking a check from the US government in the 1920s.
I rest my case.
@Greg:
Hey Greg: Losing elections has consequences, as Obama once said.
@Ivan:
You should go and read about the Depression of 1920 before you comment and make a fool of yourself.
Again.
@Aye:
So much for trying to be civil with you. What’s a matter? Don’t get any “tang? You seem to have a perpetual case of the ass, Aye. I’m worried about you.
PS I know well about the 1920s depression. See my other posts for more of an education.
@Ivan:
Okay…I’ll play your game for a bit. Let’s see what you know:
1) What was the unemployment rate during the Depression of 1920?
2) What was the performance of our nation’s GDP during the Depression of 1920?
3) What action did the Federal Reserve take in an effort to intervene?
The CBO has scored House Speaker John Boehner’s plan.
Not too good.
It raises the debt limit $1 Trillion but only reduces deficits by $1 billion in 2012 and $851 billion over the next decade!
All this fighting and only $852 billion in cuts over 10 years?!
And that’s too many cuts for Obama!
He has promised to VETO it should it reach his desk.
Fat chance of that.
Even Republicans in the House won’t go for it.
Ms. Nan G…. bingo and nail on head. Now you know why I find this political farce downright nauseating by both parties, and why I won’t be cheerleading for the GOP and their handling of this. Same ol’ same ol’ BS, and both are missing the “swift boat” by miles.
Too bad that debt ceiling limits can NOT only be raised by multi-state elections giving the approval. After all, it’s the states and their denizens that carry the load. Not Congress. Government employees get their paychecks from the taxpayers, sent to the government. Then the government employees give a bit of that taxpayer provided salary back to the government. They generate nothing in revenue… just recycle the private sector funds. Some positions are worth it. Most? Not even close. Time to take the axe to worthless federal agencies and their subagencies and those sub sub agencies.
Then again, as Greg has warned us, those federal workers, living off the private sector and in unions, will be out there with pitchforks… er, axes… to protest and not likely very passively. We’ve already seen a sample of their venom via the states. When you’ve been on the dole for so long, it’s hard to throw them back into productivity easily.
MATA, I think you put your finger on a very important fact,
OBAMA don’t want to lay of his UNION’S FRIENDS, and he is stuck now that the UNION TOP GUYS GOT HIM CORNER, HE CAN’T CUT THE GOVERNMENT JOBS AND THERE IS TO MANY OF IT THAT WHERE HIRED BECAUSE THE UNIONS PUSH IT,
THAT IS THE SCENARIO THAT IS PLAYING NOW
and there is the gigantic expense for having hired the UNIONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
which they own now, and probably nobody want to mention it , but their talk of demanding cuts is probably meaning , in other words
GET THOSE UNION GUYS OUT,
the elected GOPS AND REPUBLICANS ARE BETTER THAN US IN THE POSITION TO SEE THE
THE MONEY BEING SPEND ASTRONOMICLY AND ALL FOR THE UNION TO BENEFIT. And he need the UNIONS for 2012
coming, he is stuck, and did it himself
@Aye:
Depends who’s figures you accept; a tad under 9% (not a big deal viewed in today’s light of that of the 1981 to 1982 recession) or up to nearly 12%-much lower than the 1930s.
Given that today economists say a depression is a drop of more than 10%, the “Great Depression of 1920” doesn’t cut it- about a drop of nearly 7%. Well, well under the figure needed to be classified as a depression.
Duh, they reversed the actions which got them in the “depression” in the first place.
@MataHarley:
EXACTLY!!!!!!! It’s nauseating how messed up this whole dog-and-pony show is.
The Republicans have the power to save the nation (fiscally), yet they propose NOTHING.
Cry Baby’s “plan” cuts about 300 billion each of the next 10 years. With our deficits at about 1,600 billion to 1,400 billion it doesn’t fix the problem.
I listened to Michael Medved today and he foolishly backs Cry Baby’s plan. Even RW talk radio has sold us out.
@Aye:
And like always, you lost.
But, you have no honor and will not admit it.
@Ivan:
Oh goody. You finally decided to respond. You took just shy of 24 hours to do the research so your answers should be spot on, eh?
Let’s see:
The correct answer is just shy of 12%, so you got that one sort of right through prevarication.
Your little addendum there about it being “lower than the 1930’s” is a straw man because I never indicated that unemployment in the Depression of 1920 was worse than in the 30’s.
You’re arguing points not raised.
Let’s see how you did on the next question:
Buzzer sounds.
Ohhh…sorry. Wrong answer.
GDP dropped just shy of 17% in 1920.
All that time to prepare and you still got it wrong. Whiffed it even.
You’re one and one now. Let’s see how you did on the final question:
Buzzer sounds.
Ohhh…sorry. Wrong answer.
Dayum! Not just a little bit wrong but dead, flat, absolutely wrong.
All that time to prepare and yet you only achieved a 33 on an open book quiz. And you’re a tutor? Geez.
As I told you in #58 it’s always better to read up rather than make yourself look like a fool. Again.
Yo, dumbazz, it’s always a good idea to await the scoreboard results before you declare victory.
AYE, YVAN, I wonder how the people survived , in those times,
of course there wasn’t the FOOD STAMPS TO GET THEM TO EAT BETTER, BUT YET THEY WHERE A BREED OF STRONG BUILT AND IT MADE THEM SURVIVED THE WORSE TIME WHEN IT CAME.
BYE
@Aye:
No, you Vas Deferens, I was busy. I have a life outside of the internet. Duh.
Hey Vas Deferens, the answer is highly debatable as they didn’t have the sophisticated metrics like they do today. Duh.
Tell me, Einstein, what is the UE rate in today’s economy? Gotcha!
No, Wiki has it at -6.9%.
Sorry, you’re wrong, again.
Oh, it looks like you were wrong, again, and apparently as always:
In December 1919 the rate was raised from 4.75% to 5%. A month later it was raised to 6% and in June 1920 it was raised to 7% (the highest interest rates of any period except the 1970s and early 1980s). The high rates sharply reduced the amount of bank lending in the country, both to other banks and to consumers and businesses.[2][9]
Rates were sharply reduced in the latter half of 1921. The New York Federal Reserve reduced rates in successive half-point moves over the July- November period from the 7% high to 4.5% on November 3, 1921. The depression ended.
Dude, you’re not ready for prime-time. Go back to the Xbox and lay off the stupid pills.
@Ivan:
Really?
There are a wide variety of economists and historians that agree with my figures. I cited one of those sources.
How many have you cited? Oh, that’s right. None.
What the hell does that straw man have to do with the discussion that we’re having?
Focus man! Focus!
Wiki? Wiki?
I provide data from multiple economists and historians as well as gov’t data and you provide Wiki? You must be joking.
Wiki doesn’t even show how they arrived at that number.
The sad thing is that you’re not even bright enough to see that Wiki has lead you astray. Or, perhaps you’re not bright enough to research and locate the source material you need to prove your points.
Do you remember the original question I posed and your answer to it? Here they are again for easy reference:
You do understand that a key factor in any intervention efforts from the Fed would have been in the form of decreasing interest rates right?
According to the source I cited, Fed intervention activity was “hardly noticeable [and] the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction.”
Your Wiki source agrees with me. The Fed increased interest rates during 1920 and kept them there until the depression was coming to an end…which would be the opposite of an effort to intervene. Duh!
Your position is that “they [the Fed] reversed the actions which got them in the “depression” in the first place.”
Where are the economists which agree with you? Where are the historians? Hell, where’s the raw historical data that supports your arguments?
Oh, that’s right. You don’t have any of those do you?
First you claimed that the Depression of 1920 wasn’t a depression and that the Fed intervened.
Then, in the very Wiki stuff you quote your points are refuted.
Argue with yourself much?
It takes more than a Wiki entry to try and prove a point dumbazz. Especially when the experts in the field, the historical data, and even your own Wiki source fly in the face of your arguments. A good place to begin would be with a basic, fundamental understanding of your topic.
Geez. Talk about not being ready for prime time.
@Ivan:
Ivan the non-democrat claims that government spending is the answer. Like I have said, you are a phony pretending to be an “Archie Bunker” Conservative.
@Hard Right:
No, duffy, I don’t propose a public-works program. Just stating a fact that it did bring Germany out of the Depression before the other nations.
Or are you incapable of accepting facts?
@Aye:
Aye, I need you to focus, focus, focus like a laser beam on this. Wiki cited your source and this one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5814/is_n3_v29/ai_n28604039/
So you laugh at the use of Wiki, yet wiki uses your source.
Gee, what do you know! Wiki used Aye’s source!!!!
Btw, I knew you would attack the wiki quote, thus I waited for you to step in it, which you did with great aplomb.
Thanks for showing everyone by your own stupidity why I refer to you as Vas Deferens!
;->
@Ivan:
You’re correct… the Wiki article used one of my sources and, yes, I already knew that. If I hadn’t already seen the original source material how else would I have figured out that the number you cited was garbage? Duh!
What’s sad is that you’re not even bright enough to realize that your Wiki article didn’t accurately report the information from the original source even with a direct link to the numbers.
Yo, dumbazz, once again I point and laugh at you.
Oh, and thanks for that bnet article. Yet another source that flies in the face of the arguments you’ve been putting forward.
You’re really not very good at this.
@Ivan
You do understand how Wikipedia works don’t you?
One visitor writes a Wikipedia entry, and then it is open for a certain amount of time for any other visitors who want to edit it in the optimistic hope that honest and knowledgeable peers will provide corrections or more information. Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop cranks and spreaders of disinformation from adding nonsense, lies or politicized conjecture. Wikipedia does not verify that anything entered as “fact” is actually correct. Once the page is locked to editing, there is no way to correct for false information. In fact the entire entry can be completely false. While some of the pages may be correct, no one is verifying the accuracy of anything. That is why Wikipedia is rarely accepted by anyone as a legitimate source, and certainly not for anything political or controversial.