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 40 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 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in 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.
While officials from the Obama Administration raised their rhetoric over the weekend about the possibility of a debt default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, they privately have been telling top executives at major U.S. banks that such an event won’t happen, FOX Business has learned.
In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date.….Charlie Gasparino reports.
I guess Obama’s bluff has been called.
P.S.
Wasn’t it Voltaire who went on about this being ”the best of all possible worlds?”
http://classiclit.about.com/od/candidevoltaire/a/aa_candidequote.htm
The House has pretty much done that already. Although it never reached Obama’s desk, the Senate voted Cap, Cut and Balance down, and along party lines for the most part. And, Obama had already threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate.
Obama, and the democrats in congress, keep harping on the tax issue. Fine, then I would present the facts to the people for the next week. The liberal/progressives have talked about raising taxes on the “rich”, so explain to the people that the tax increases they are wanting amount to only $70 Billion per year, while the “cuts” they talk about, when they do talk about them, are inconsequential. Then explain the difference in the deficit this year if those tax hikes had been in place, compared to what it will be.
Lay it all out on the table for the people. Everything. Then give the people time enough to start calling their congress critters on what they want. Make sure to point out that the liberal/progressives wish to have those tax hikes now, and deal with the spending cuts later. I have an idea of how people are going to respond, and it won’t be in favor of the liberal/progressive position.
“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.”
Obama, again, shirking duties. Are we surprised?
From Macchiavelli: I’m not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.
Does that also sound like Obama?
@Nan G:
Sure but I harbor Machiavelli in my heart with regard to my plan.
No, Republicans should just say,”NEGATIVE” to any raising of the ceiling.
Any plan which raises the ceiling will be accompanied by “cuts” which will be nothing more than accounting tricks and “cuts” years out in the future.
We’ve seen this again and again and again.
Defund the beast. Don’t feed it.
Comrade Reid’s plan has come out. 270 billion in cuts over the next ten years or in laymen’s terms, we’ll still spend least one trillion dollars more every year then what we’ll take in! Moron Alert! That’s another ten trillion more in debt! Basically, more of the same tired worn out kick it down the line Bull Sh…! This isn’t even lip service. This is blame everyone we can but ourselves and hope the stupid idiots who elect us keep buying it! This isn’t just comrade Obama’s problem kids! This is every scum politician, Democrat or limp wristed Republican (and for the record, I don’t give one hoot whether someone thinks I’m being politically incorrect right now!) fault! For years they’ve overspent and lied to the public so as to curry enough favor to keep their power! And let’s not forget the propaganda arm known as the MSM, lying to the public and keeping real facts from us all to support these lying sacks of sh…!!
From the Detroit Free Press:
Obama is insisting that the debt ceiling extension be large enough to ensure that the issue does not arise again until after the 2012 elections…â��
Well Hell’s Bells! At least we now know what’s important! Certainly not the fact that in anything these clowns are even remotely discussing, there isn’t one iota of thought as to actually cutting spending to the point of incoming revenues! No Sir! Everything from not only the leftist scum, but also way to many on the right indicates a desire to continue spending at a frenetic pace far and beyond revenue stream. In other words, we still would have to borrow! Let’s not forget one other thing. Ryan’s plan also spent way more than we take in.
This isn’t rocket science folks! When I’m broke, I don’t spend! If I’m short I prioritize! If the country fails to get the debt ceiling raised, it’s not like all revenue stops coming in! The government would have to prioritize1 SS, the military and the interest can easily be met by incoming revenues as can some other stuff! Until the scum in D.C. gets serious and actually cut REAL SPENDING we will continue down the side of the mountain a t a breakneck pace!
Cutting REAL SPENDING would mean some pain! It would hurt me for sure as millions of others. But once cut, this country could hopefully get back on an even keel. Swallow the medicine now or have a few amputations later. That’s where we’re at! For my kids and grandkids sakes, I pray we act now. Unfortunately though, it appears the status quo will instead stand! Everything coming out of the halls of power suggest the majority of our elected officials don’t give a damn about anything other that their own survival! Everything points to elected officials who do not have the balls to stand up for what is right! They have become so immersed in their own twisted lies and belief systems that they cannot even remember the basic premises this country was founded on! It has to stop and now!!!
@Ivan:
I agree. It is severe. It is painful. It might even hurt the economy itself, a little. But in the end, we, as a country, will be all the stronger for it, and will avoid much, much worse pain in the future, not only for ourselves, but our children, and children’s children, and all future Americans.
The only sure way to ensure that actual spending cuts are made, is to remove that which allows that spending in the first place. And for now, that means removing the ability of the government to borrow money.
The point that is missed by most is this: Democrat strategy is simple. “You can get your agenda driven bills passed in a crisis, where if you try to pass them under normal situations, the American people will reject them” that’s the underlying issue. They have framed every debate as a world ending crisis. Healthcare, Budget, Debt reduction… What ever it is, it’s governing through fear.
The problem with the republicans is they keep allowing them to get away with it. They are always painted as the bad guys because they are now starting to stand. They better not fold on ANY Democrat deal PERIOD. They need to stand strong allow the country to default if that’s the outcome and we need to be strong enough to take the pain and place the blame RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE! The Democrat party of the USA and it’s LEADER.
Dr. J. I believe it is the Repubs. that are “more concerned with the 2012 elections” They have repeated ly shown that anything they perceive will hurt Obama politically is good.
Their 2012 problem will come from within i.e. mainstream vs. Tea Party. If the sword Tea Partiers are holding prevents the nomination of a Romney led ticket and puts up a Bachmann,Palin ticket indies will flood to Obama.Battle won war lost.Tea Partiers fall on your swords and accept YOU’VE given BHO 4 more years.
Tea Party disasters like Shirley and Christine helped Dems. hold The Senate.A similar disaster is pending.
@rich wheeler:
And that’s different from Obama and the democrats how?
I think they were trying to leverage a deal but as Obama keeps changing the ground rules everyone gets frustrated. Dealing with Obama is like trying to talk to a butterfly. You can hardly keep track of the flitting around and it doesn’t listen.
Obama just turned down a bipartisan effort.
When Hairy Reid actually starts doing his job something is screwy. He now seems willing to make a deal without new taxes as long as it inoculates democrats from the next election. To me that is one giant red flag.
Dr. J. Voters see both parties at fault in inability to reach solutions. Tea Party seen by MAJORITY as being intransigent and unwilling to compromise.This perception if followed by right wing nominee in 2012 will ensure BHO’S re-election. Battle/War
The 2012 loss will be blamed on T.P. and they will die or form a weakened 3rd Party.
@rich wheeler:
Rich
CCB was favored 2:1 by voters. Rejected by democrats.
Bipartisan effort rejected by Obama.
Democrats have no plan.
Hard to defend all that.
The two part thing is not bad- this must be revisited again next year, but I like my idea better. Republicans would look great.
Dr.J. Polls show negative perception of T.P. worse than Dems. or Repubs. Shirley and Christine followed by Sarah and Michelle. Good Luck.
Drudge is headlining that Obama’s Approval rating is the worst since his election:
The link shows Obama has a -21 approval.
That means that, of likely voters,
23% of them strongly approve Obama’s job,
44% of them strongly disapprove Obama’s job.
OUCH!
Jay Carney, Obama’s PRESS secretary (in an effort to avoid the PRESS) Twittered this:
Obama will address the nation on tonight on the “stalemate over avoiding default and the best approach to cutting deficits.”
Not a press conference.
Nope.
Probably something canned from a combination of Obama’s various well-paid speech writers.
One question:
Will Obama be ping-ponging between two teleprompters, or will he use a third near the camera lens?
@rich wheeler: Not to worry. The Tea Party will support whoever ends up with the nomination, be it Romney or Perry.
Take heart.
Courage.
ABO
@Nan G:
There, I fixed it, Nan.
Dr. J. I’d like to hear from Tea Partiers on F.A. re. their support of a Romney led ticket.
Are they O.K. with raising the debt ceiling as proposed in C.C.B.?
@rich wheeler:
There was a poll (maybe two weeks ago) among TEA partiers whereby 90% said they would vote for whichever Republican was nominated.
Fewer Republicans promised to do so.
Ot was only between 80% and 90% in their case.
Nan Can we get an AMEN to that poll from Tea PartIers here at F.A.?
Obama’s address:
Bush’s fault.
Then we HAD to spend more.
(1st lie)
Stuff we all know.
Jobs created by gov’t spending
(2nd lie)
Straw man.
(No one had said that!)
$4 trillion savings
(3rd lie)
Acts like he has a plan on the table.
(4th lie)
Straw man
Rich pay NOTHING.
(5th big lie)
Corp. jet owners (again)
Less than 1% of need.
Not right, not fair.
Millionaires are everyone making more than $250,000/year.
Same lies.
Doubled down.
Are you all so dumb as to not understand the concept of ”the debt ceiling?”
Obama explains it to you.
ANOTHER straw man….Rep’s have said they were FOR closing tax loopholes.
Interest rates SKYROCKET.
(lie #6 or above)
Temporary extension MIGHT this or that. (Implied threats)
(6 months more time is still MORE time!)
No plan from Obama.
Congress must act.
(Leading from behind)
Passing both houses of Congress NOT ENOUGH!
Obama MUST be willing to sign it too.
So, he can be a spoiler.
But somehow Obama will not take the blame.
Obama refuses to compromise yet touts compromise on the part of his political ENEMIES.
Obama forgot that gridlock is a defining part of divided government!
Pretends it is not.
Wants you to write your elected official (not HIM) to make them compromise.
Look in the mirror, Obama, when you read the words, you can’t get your own way all of the time.
Who cares? They are all whores, with a price for their services in passing a debt ceiling that they all agree must be raised or it’s Armaggedon.
I’m with Ivan and johngalt here, and have been so. I don’t want the GOP in there with this attitude anymore than I want the lib/progs in there. Death by slashing the wrists (Dems/lib/prog) is little different outcome than death by 1000 cuts (traditional GOP) or the tea party (5000 cuts). Just takes longer to die, but you still won’t cure the disease that is this federal entitlement goverment and it’s corrupt, big spending legislators.
I need some of those reality altering drugs you’re using if you actually buy this puritan view of your party, rich…. I’m not here to defend the GOP, but your statement is the Jimi Hendrix view of political reality. Thanks for the grin.
Gee… that makes me feel better… NOT! Sell outs, or partial sell outs…. all with the not-so-good-House-keeping seal of approval. Either way the toilet bowl flush continues. Oh happy days.
But good job of carrying the water, drj. Worthy of a Mike’sA “atta boy”. You may want to look really hard find the blind partisan support around you. Me? Apparently becoming a white elephant/leper around this type of thinking Because you sure won’t find it from me.
Not only is this not going well for fiscal conservatives, and their prostitution price embarrassing, but the more genuine quest to reverse serious damage with this bloated goverment is becoming nothing but a tea party election talking point for getting a nice, secure political career for life. It doesn’t even give me much heart to bother to vote at all in 2012. You know…a choice between clowns to the left of me, and jokers to the right….
I like your proposal, just give him the debt ceiling he wants with no strings and eventually the lack of any credible plan to close the deficit will become obvious. Unfortunately that won’t be for a few years, because with the weak markets and low interest rates the US can probably continue to borrow cheaply for some years yet, making the mountain of debt all the larger by the time the average person finally realizes that the deficits aren’t being closed by the 2013 tax hikes. Worse still, the adverse effects on GDP growth will be unprovable – unless it’s negative, who’s to say what GDP might have been without the tax hikes? All anyone will know is that GDP is coming in below the rosy CBO forecasts, and that tax revenue isn’t keeping up with ballooning expenses, and that, well, the plan isn’t working. At this point, don’t underestimate the batshit craziness of the other side. All you have to do is look at Krugman and Reich. When something doesn’t work, complain that it just wasn’t big enough and demand more of the same, only bigger! Reich has already put the 1970s vintage 70% tax rate on the table. Taxes will be increased and increased again, as everyone thinks that somehow they can have these programs while sticking someone else with the tab. It takes decades to become Greece 2.0, and every step of the way it would suck.
Something just hit me. Everyone assumes that Obama wants our nation’s credit rating not to be downgraded. However, we should remember that his administration has been heavily populated by people who have been influenced by George Soros and his ideological cronies. Obama’s throwing a monkey wrench on the plan by “moving the goalposts” on Boehner may have been purposeful. He might fully intend to arrange matters so that even if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating get’s downgraded, (which of course he and the Democrats will blame on the Republicans). Remember, Soros loves to create crises with government’s economies, and you can bet he is already set up to profit on any damage done to the US economy, which he has already stated is his goal.
joetote, hi,
yes they must prioritize, BUT NOT ON THE MILITARY, SPECIALY IN TIMES OF WARS MANY WARS,
the democrats allowed OBAMA to get in,
let him prioritize on his own private workers in the agency that people dislike and let the people choose them if he doesn’t have the wishes to do so,
but don’t use the only one who are putting their life on the lines for everyone’s butts
the militarys are already streched thin, so nothing to cut there, instead they should provide more to them
so they can finish the job in AFGHANISTAN , FINISH IT FOR GOOD ONCE AND FOR ALL, GIVE THE AMERICANS A STRIKING WIN, AND COME BACK TO THEIR LOVED ONE,
THEY ARE NOW NEEDED IN AMERICA TO WORK ALONG THE CIA THE FBI AND THE POLICE FORCES,
BECAUSE OF THE DANGEROUS TERRORISTS FACTIONS WHICH ARE INFILTRATED IN AMERICA VIA THE BORDERS THE GOVERNMENT KEEP WIDE OPEN AND DON’T GIVE A DAM ABOUT THE PROBLEM,
THAT THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS ARE BEING KILLED UNDERGROUND IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY,
YES PRIORITIZE FOR THE BENEFITS OF AMERICANS, NOT THE INTENT OF THE DEMOCRATS,
WORRIED ONLY FOR THEIR CRASHING PARTY.
@ilovebeeswarzone: Hi Bees,
I hope I didn’t state it wrong as you are correct. What I meant as to prioritize is that the military, SS, basic government functions and interest at the top. My son-in-law just got back the other day from over there. The horror stories are bad enough. but I can tell you one thing for sure. The super majority of our fabulous servicemen and women have absolutely no use for their Clown in Chief!
As always, you’re right on Bees!!!
The country will default unless the budget gets balanced quickly and for the long term. Simple arithmetic. It’s only a matter of time. The problem is, no one wants a solution that requires hard choices. The pols don’t want to do what is necessary because it’ll damper their prospects for re-election. A lot of the people themselves don’t want to support doing what is necessary because it’ll mean having to wean themselves off of the nanny state they have been taught to embrace. As a result, measures that are passed will only be good long enough for CYA for the pols. It reminds me of something I read the other day:
“Put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara today and they will run out of sand tomorrow.”
joetote, YOU SAID IT RIGHT ALL THE WAY,
I took the opportunity to have my say,
best to you and your son in law safe return which make you and your family so proud.
another vet, yes the SAHARA QUOTE IS VERY TELLING, IT SAYS IT ALL,
and if the one who still support the DEMOCRATS AFTER THIS QUOTE, THERE IS NO WAY TO BREAK THEIR BLURRY VISION FROM THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES DONE BY THE WHOLE DEMOCRATIC GROUP
FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. THEY ARE COOK WELL INTO THEIR REASONNING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.
THEY REMIND ME OFOBAMA’S FRIEND , GOLD AND SACH TELLING GADAFI WHO HAD INVESTED BILLIONS WITH THEM, THAT THEY CANNOT GIVE HIM HIS MONEY BACK BECAUSE OF BAD INVESTMENTS, SO THAT RESULTED IN HAVING OBAMA TELLING GADAFI TO GET OUT AND LEAVE THE REBELS IN HIS PLACE, SENDING THE NATO TROOPS WITH HIS FRIEND THE UN ORGANISATION,
TO DEMOLISH THE LIBYAN’S COUNTRY, THINKING IT WOULD FREAK GADAFI OUT ON THE FIRST WEEK. SO AFTER SPENDING BILLIONS TO SUPPORT THE REBELS, THEY ARE STILL THERE STUCK,
IN THEIR BAD JUDGEMENT’S DECISION AND THE WORLD IS WATCHING IT UNROLL.
@Robert: Re: comment #8, Robert, you make a VERY good point. I could not agree with you more!
I thought Obama’s debt ceiling address last night was quite good. His explanation of the situation was accurate and easy to understand.
The American people want a balanced solution to the debt problem. Every recent poll clearly reflects this. A balanced solution means higher taxes on the top end, in conjunction with spending cuts that will effect everyone else. Anyone thinking the voters will stand for more tax cuts at the top in conjunction with deep spending cuts borne by everyone else has to have a screw loose. If republicans continue to push this idea, they’ll be done for after 2012.
The core assertion that taxes can’t be increased on the job creators is patently absurd. For most of the past century taxes were far higher at the high end. Obviously millions upon millions of jobs were created decade after decade in that tax environment. The nation prospered like no other time in its history in that tax environment. The national debt remained small and manageable in that tax environment. And people still got very rich in that tax environment.
No one is asking for a return to rates anywhere near as high as they were during those years–simply for a return to more rationally progressive, pre-Bush tax cut rates. In the context of the debt ceiling debate, even smaller revenue concessions on the part of republicans would have gained previously unheard of reductions in spending to programs long considered to be a political third rail and entirely off the table. If republicans are really concerned about moving toward fiscal balance as their highest priority, this is totally inexplicable behavior. They’re missing an opportunity to break the third-rail barrier like none that has occurred in recent political history. What the hell is that about?
These people are so ideologically rigid that they won’t even consider the closing of loopholes in the way of revenue increases. Obviously protecting the lowest tax rates in history for some of the richest people in history is of higher priority than balancing the budget–the necessity of which is supposedly the motive behind the republican threat that they’ll either get their way or risk wrecking the economy.
Their real motives are obvious. If they think Obama can’t hang a clearly legible sign over their heads explaining what those motives are before the 2012 elections, they’re in for one helluva surprise.
Greg Well written. Tea Party is out to bring down the Govt.
They will suffer a severe backlash from the American voter.
Thank you, sir.
they must cut now not in 10 years, the DEMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT OVER EXPANSES DONE ON THE BACK OF AMERICANS
THEY WANT TO DRAG THE PROBLEM TO ANOTHER ADMINISTRATION’S COMING,
while they continue to spend the coming raised debt over the ceiling,
that must not be allowed, they must start showing the cuts right now, or no DEBT RAISED,
HOPE OUR GUYS AND GIRLS STAND TALL TO IT,AND
NOT TAKE ON THE SHAME THAT BELONG TO OBAMA BIG SPENDING FOLLOWED BY HIS DEMOCRATS TO SCARE TO HAVE STOPPED HIM RUINING AMERICA
Greg and Rich… what a hooey of partisan baloney ye both spout. Apparently a reality both of you miss is that were the Congress to not increase their domestic spending a penny, the debt still piles on because the entitlement programs… to which you can now add O’healthcare… are on a runaway train of increased debt.
There is no way any tax revenues can stop this runaway train… nay, even slow it significantly. Ponzi schemes never work out, and are doomed to failure. The decreased earnings by the youth in today’s environment – expected to support the Medicare/SS generations- being further hamstrung with “you’re too rich, cough up” policies is simply slashing your own wrists and hoping for a slow bleed.
Both parties are wrong, and your party the most egregious in it’s glossed over, Pollyanna economic approach. Since almost half the nation doesn’t pay taxes, there’s little from those turnips you can demand in additional revenue. For those carrying the bulk of the tax load, demanding they pay more for out of control, piss poor policies made decades ago, is like trying to douse a forest fire with a sippy cup half full of water.
Just like any “kitchen room table”, the debt ceiling should not be raised, and payments triaged while cuts are made. The choices of how payments are triaged are in the hands of the executive branch and his Treasury appointees. Thus if grandma or the military, along with our debt payments, isn’t paid, it’s because the WH and ilk chose to make them a political scapegoat. That’s an onus they alone bear. It will also prove they are inept and ill-equipped to handle the nations budgeted cash if they choose to continue to pay bloated federal agencies and useless federal employees before our debts, entitlements and military.
Medicare and Social Security should be reformed… with a way found to continue the services for those on it currently or rapidly approaching that age, and weening the youth off the system with alternatives. The federal government never had business being in the pension or the health care insurance business, let alone designing both so that the younger generations were footing the current generation’s bills.
Federal departments should be eliminated or shaved down to the bare essential personnel for their originally intended purpose. We didn’t have a mammoth Dept of Education until Jimmy Carter. Gee… how did we function… It’s now 5000 employees, with pensions, in size and they don’t educate anyone.
The Dept of Education doesn’t even scratch the surface of worthless entities with pampered and useless employees. The amount of federal agencies, and their sub agencies we have, not even including the new ones created by O’healthcare, is simply staggering.
Lest ye take the tact of pitying all those pathetic unemployed federal workers, you need to remember the lessons and wisdom of the private sector. When there is a genuine need for a service or product, private entrepreneurs fill that need. Other than a changeover period of dumping the waste, and having former pampered federal employees again join those that actually support this nation instead of recycling someone else’s tax dollars, shrinking the size of this disgustingly bloated federal government is the only way to return to sane fiscal policies…. right next to eliminating the ponzi schemes so that the future generations don’t find themselves in the same economic cesspool.
This means, rich wheeler, that it’s not the tea party who is out to bring down the gov’t…. as if that could happen with a grassroot movement with no powers of legislation, no policy or regulations authority, and merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It was decades of Congress, bent on creating a social welfare power net, that has done that already. Such a suggestion by you is not only grossly out of line and insulting to even an 8th grader’s intelligence, but confirms you are willing to point your finger anywhere but at the culprits and evil doers.
We’re just now staring down the reality of such folly from decades old entitlement programs. Unfortunately, it appears that neither party – both under the belief that a refusal to increase the national credit card limit is “armaggedon” – has the heart to do what it takes because it will be unpopular and detrimental to their personal political careers. Worse yet, with those educated to such socialist beliefs such as you and greg, it’s pretty much guaranteed that you are going to cheerlead the destruction of this nation by your ignorance, and sense of entitlement.
@Greg:
I doubt that your view of his address surprises anyone here.
You do understand that a raise in taxes on those Obama has targeted will only bring in around $70 Billion per year on average for the next decade, don’t you? You also understand that Obama, and the liberal/progressives in Congress, have balked at any real spending cuts proposed, and have offered no specific cuts of their own, don’t you? So please explain exactly how Obama is going to go about his “balanced approach” to the problem, and actually solve it.
I suggest that you read this article by Thomas Sowell. It might open your eyes a little, but I won’t hold my breath;
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=578623&p=1
Make sure to read all three parts.
Really? Then why all the talk by liberal/progressives about raising taxes only on the “rich”. If that was done, the tax rate system would become radically more progressive than it is now, or even under Clinton. Your comments and views, and that of the liberal/progressives in Congress, and that of Obama, is that of returning to Clinton-era tax rates for only the higher income earners, not for everyone. You all say ‘shared sacrifice’, but then talk about only the wealthy paying more. And then, to bolster your argument, you bring up the income disparity issue.
While you say you mean one thing, your words and actions actually mean something quite different. It isn’t “fairness” that you are after. All your words lead to one common theme. That is, wealth redistribution. Be a man, Greg, and state what you really want.
Would you be for closing the “loopholes” on ALL areas in the individual income tax code, such as tax credits that only the lower income earners can take? If not, then you aren’t really for closing “loopholes”, but, as I stated above, you are for wealth redistribution. Again, be a man, Greg, and state what you really want.
That statement presupposes that increasing those taxes is more important to balancing the budget than actual spending cuts. And as I have stated, numerous times, in articles here on FA, the tax increases that Obama and the liberal/progressives in Congress keeping harping on will only gather $70 Billion or so per year. When we are talking $1 Trillion-plus deficits, that is just a drop in the bucket. Did Obama mention this last nite? Or did he, as you did here, allude to those tax increases being the key to balancing the budget? I am not sure, but I believe that your knowledge of math is better than you display in your words, as is Obama’s, so that only leads to one conclusion. That wealth redistribution is your goal, not balancing the budget. Again, and for the last time here, be a man, Greg, and state what you really want.
Obama already has, numerous times, and people still don’t get it. He told Joe the plumber he was for wealth redistribution. He stated another time that he thinks, “at a certain point, people have made enough money”.
Greg and rich wheeler, don’t you worry about the TEA PARTY, THEY ARE FROM THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, THEY ARE THE REAL ONE TO BE IN CHARGE OF CORRECTING THE WRONG DONE
BY THIS GOVERNMENT, and they are not going anywhere , they are growing in membership and influences as we speak, they will work for the benefits of the people like them, not like the GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT,
SOMEONE MENTIONED HOW MANY MILLIONS SOME DEMOCRATS ARE WORTH,AS IT IS NOW.
BUT WHEN OBAMA THREATEN TO CUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY OF THE POOR PEOPLE,
DID YOU HEAR THAT NO ONE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY OFFER TO HELP IF IT WOULD HAPPEN,
AND TO THINK THEY ALL MADE THEIR MONEY ON THE BACK OF AMERICA,
THEY SHOULD BE CUT OUT OF THEIR SALARY AND WORK FOR FREE UNTIL THEY ARE BOOTH OUT,
OR GET OUT ON THEIR OWN WHICH THEY PROBABLY WOULD FASTER. WITHOUT A PAY CHECK
@johngalt:
Style over substance. You can campaign on it.
@rich wheeler:
The level of self-delusion required to make that statement is incredible.
@drjohn:
Yes, as Obama has clearly demonstrated for the masses, and Greg and Rich for us here at FA. Demagoguery and rhetoric, along with controlling the narrative, even when telling outright falsehoods, is more effective with voters than the actual truth.
@johngalt, #36:
Perhaps republicans should state what they really want. I figure they’re doing that with their actions, the effects of which cannot be reconciled with the words about their objectives.
From the New York Times, yesterday; A ‘Unique Opportunity’ on the Debt Ceiling, Lost:
MATA wow, I SAW THE EAGLE AGAIN COMING DOWN TO HIT THE TARGETS SO FAST,
I just saw two head rolled across the pasture and two headless suits looking for it on the wrong side, being attacked by the bull in front of his cows cheering loudly. while the two headless now ragged suits are running in circle to desperatly find their heads rendered brainless,
what a show it was, bye
@Greg:
I believe that they have, numerous times. And it has never been what you have attributed to them. Tell me, though, exactly how you believe raising $70 Billion per year in revenues, off the backs of the higher income earners, will balance the budget without actual cuts in spending, which is what the liberal/progressives have talked about. List for me, and others here, the exact spending cuts the Democratic party members have proposed.
As an aside, I do not care what the Republicans want. Party politics means little here. It is only doing what needs to be done that interests me.
Rhetoric and demagoguery does not make a plan, Greg, and that is the only thing the Democrats have done thus far on this issue. What’s more, they insist on instituting tax increases now, and pushing spending cuts off to the future. That is no plan. That is kicking the can down the road.
Where are the spending cuts?
@johngalt, #43:
To balance the budget immediately, it would take a cut of over 40% in federal spending immediately. Essentially it would be the same as deciding not to raise the debt ceiling–except with the addition of a public announcement stating who will promptly get the ax.
Spending cuts have to be phased in over time. Unless, of course, someone wants to face an outraged public armed with axes, who have an entirely different sort of cutting on their minds.
The particulars of spending cuts have to be worked out by both parties together. Neither will take the political risk on their own. (Except, perhaps, for the current, apparently suicidal republican leadership.)
Don’t people realize the heat Obama has taken from the democratic far left over his willingness to discuss program cuts? Where’s the republican willingness to take some heat from the Tea Party?
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s possible to get away from party politics.
Didn’t somebody around here claim the US Postal Service didn’t cost run at a loss?
OOOPS!
Well, WHO is going to pay that huge $5.5 billion ANNUAL retiree health bene?
@Greg:
Ever read about what happened during the Depression of 1920?
Dramatic, immediate cuts in gov’t spending have been done before.
You keep wailing about wanting “shared sacrifice”…well, drastic, immediate cuts would result in the shared sacrifice that you’re looking for.
Dr. J. re. #16 Mata indicates she WILL NOT support a Romney type as you and Nan suggest.Next
@Aye:
Along that line, I was wondering…..
Due to cutbacks, the FAA stopped collecting a fee of 1/4 of all airline tickets.
But the airlines didn’t lower their rates, just collected the amount due the FAA on top of their ticket prices.
Does this mean the airlines could act as tax collectors for the traveling public, thus saving us taxpayers a ton of cash hiring all those tax collectors in the FAA?
If this is the case, how many other federal jobs could be eliminated tomorrow with the cooperation of the companies they collect taxes from?
There’s a big chunk of your 40% savings right there!
@Nan G:
My understanding of the FAA thing (and I’ve only heard snippets here and there) is that the tax itself expired due to failure by Congress to extend it.
As a result, the FAA lost a portion of it’s funding resulting in part of that department closing up shop.
Even when in effect, the FAA doesn’t collect its’ own taxes. That collection process is similar to the collection of FICA or sales taxes. The employer or the merchant collects the money and then remits it over to the gov’t.
I may be completely off base on my assessment of the reasoning behind the tax no longer being collected but I know for sure that the airlines collect it and then pass it along to the gov’t.
Essentially the airlines just hiked their rates by that amount and are now pocketing the extra money.
Hey, I would think folks around here would consider closing post offices to represent progress.
The House has failed to fund the Federal Aviation Administration, in case anyone is interested. The FAA partially shut down four days ago. Thousands of employees are off the job. Airport construction has ceased. A number of small airports will close. Essential personnel remain on the job. (“Essential” being those without whom jet aircraft would be colliding in mid-air, and attempting to land on the same runway at precisely the same moment.) The FAA is covering Congress’ butt for the time being.
One benefit of closing down much of the FAA is that over $30 million per day in taxes used to support FAA operations no longer apply. Most of the major airline corporations are continuing to add them to their ticket price, however. For as long as FAA remains shut down, they’re pocketing an additional $30 million per day. They accomplished this by seamlessly raising their prices by the amount of the taxes that no longer apply.