Please explain Feisty how not raising the debt ceiling = collapse of the global economy. Heck just explain default.

Start with the amount of revenue the gov. receives. Now subtract the amount of existing debt service. THis would be the cost of the existing debt - how much we pay.

Hey, looky there, see how the revenue number is way bigger than the debt number? Do you understand that means that all the debt can easily be paid. And that if the debt is paid, then there would of course be no default.

Feisty it really looks like you do not understand what the word default means.

Perhaps you should look it up. It would be really helpful in any future participation you might have in this discussion.

Oh and while you all are at you meeting have some one bring a book on basic economics. It would really be helpful.

{Off Topic}

Spanky, I'm not sure - I may have you confused with another poster. Do you live in So. California?

Yep.

I don't suppose you are going to explain what a default is to Feisty are you?

Okay Spanky -

Use your plan, how much is left over for running the country? Sure there would not be funding sufficient for SS, welfare, health care, food stamps, FSSA, WIC, and other "social" services, but also insufficient funding for law enforcement, ATF, DHS, military, FBI, CIA, and "necessary" programs as well as NASA, research/develpment, and perhaps IRS, treasury/mint, and other government functions.

You seem to me to be WAY off base with the right wingnut rhetoric. There is so very much more to the "big picture" that you don't address nor consider.

Bottom line is that Boehmer, Cantor, pledgers, etc. - and apparently you too - do not want a functioning American government. THAT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!!

Spanky, no actually I was surprised to see Whitey had lived in So. California all these years without being noticed. FBI Most Wanted. I thought he was hiding out somewhere in Europe. Despicable human being.

I gave my daughter a credit card and said, OK you will get $100 allowance each month to pay your bills. If you need to spend a little more than your $100, you can because the credit card will let you pay for less than what you really owe because they will make money on you in the form of interest if you don't pay it back. But keep in mind that you eventually have to pay it all back and some of that money you pay will be just for the priveledge of paying it back slower than you spent it.

She goes out and rings up thousands of dollars in charges. What is the first thing I need to do?

1. Give her a bigger allowance by taking some of my son's allowance and give it to her.
2. Take away her credit card.
3. Ask the credit card company to increase her spending limit.
4. Ask my rich uncle to pay her bill so that her credit rating is not blemished.

If there are more options for the first action, let me know. I tend to think #2 is the correct answer.

It's not that simple JC in G. There is nothing wrong with raising taxes to pay off the debt faster. Republicans don't want to end their policy of "Starving the Beast". If taxes go up and the debt is paid off faster there won't be an excuse to end entitlements.

We are on to you Republicans......

You know JC - I am certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that one is so obvious.

Problem is it's the hard choice, and know one wants to make the hard choice.

And really why should we? We can just keep screwing our kids and grandkids, cause that is exactly what we are doing right now.

Odd, coming from the party that ostensibly does everything "for the children."

Yeah Eric - that is exactly what they told us 4 years ago in Cali. They enacted "temporary" tax increases - across the board. And these where big increases.

They said only for 4 years so they could fix the budget.

Eric, you know how this story ended, in real life, right. Again, not an example, real life.

Response please? See we already have tried it your way, about a million times. The train ends. It has to.

I like your attitude Feisty...and points well made. GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor's walking out was a stunt reminding me of a small child having a temper tantrum when not getting his way.

Too bad the GOP can't compromise and always demands to have everything their way. Dems stand for "We the People"..like in the Preamble to the Constitution. GOP stands for "ME ME Me and whatever wealth and advantage I can get as fast as I can get it" before the American public wakes up and realizes that the "Haves" have taken over...ruled by corporate entities.

OK Eric, I will be glad to make it more complicated:

I have a total of 4 kids, the daughter that gets $100 a month and has rung up the huge credit card bill.

Her older brother that gets $150 a month. He cuts the grass, does the laundry and cooks all the meals. He also pays his little brother $20 a month to trim the hedges.

The little brother gets $50 a month and has to clean the toilets. (He also gets that $20 from his big brother.)

Baby sister gets $30 a month and does nothing to help the family. (But we love and care for her just the same)

Now what to do about the overspent daughter....

1. Take away the credit card.
2. Take the $20 from the older brother that just spends this on the younger brother to help pay the bill.
3. Give the baby an extra $50 so she has more money.
4. Stop giving any of the kids except the credit card daughter any money and give it to her.

JC - you are wasting your time.

Economics and especially math are not the libbies' strong suits.

There is nothing wrong with raising taxes to pay off the debt faster. Republicans don't want to end their policy of "Starving the Beast". If taxes go up and the debt is paid off faster there won't be an excuse to end entitlements.

Exactly Eric!

Especially since the tax rate is the lowest it's been in 50 years!

I have NO problem with cutting as long as it's done it a fair & balanced manner on NOT on the backs of the already working poor!

So why is it such a problem to increase revenues if were so far in debt?

Why isn't defense spending on the chopping block for starters?

The "Debt Subject to Limit' includes intergovernmental transactions such as the Social Security Trust fund. The Social Security Trust fund amounts today to 4.3 Trillion Dollars. If Republicans play 'chicken' with our lives, the President should, by executive action, remove the Social Security Trust fund from the 'Debt Subject to Limit' and, thus, in another way 'raise' the debt limit. The debt limit should reflect the governments borrowing against credit markets and not intergovernmental transactions. From what I can determine, no other large country in the world includes intergovernmental debt in their national debt number.

If Republicans want to trash all prior precedents and hold a gun to our heads, the Democrats should show some backbone and respond by also rejecting precedent. (Strangely, this may actually be a way out for Republicans)!

Wow, it's like they took their ball and went home. I have presented a pretty simple anology to our government spending problem and no one wants to offer a better solution to fix the problem. Why is that?

Could it be that the idea of spending only whay you have makes sense?

Eric,

If you (politicians) actually used the money to pay off the debt, I think you could reach an agreement between both parties. I (conservative) would support a special tax to pay off the debt, but I wouldn't support an increase in taxes to pay off the debt, without a commesurate decrease in overall spending. The single largest problem in the whole package is that the politicians don't know how to live within their means. If we (citizens) agree to a greater tax burden, without a guarantee on how that money is used, then the politicians will find a new and intriguing way to spend our money, then ask for still more. Take a look at the overall budgets for the United States (or expenditures if a budget wasn't passed). In 2000 our budget was approximately 1.8 trillion dollars, stated in constant fy 2000 dollars, with a surplus of 230 Billion. Today it's approximately 2.8 trillion (again, stated in constant fy 2000 dollars, which reduces the effect of inflation), and the deficit (again, constant fy 2000 dollars) is approximately 1 Trillion dollars. That sounds an awful lot like not living within your means. When you can't trust the folks that take your money to spend it wisely, why on earth would you believe that giving them more is a good idea?

Here's the link to the data that I used. I expect that you can interpret it differently if you'd like, but I'd be interested in your interpretation as well.

JC in G: re:1.6, I'd do the same thing as you suggest if it were my own child in a similar situtaion but I have one question for you.

What essential services does your daughter provide to others that are not negotiable and need to be paid for every month regardless of her income or amount of debt?

Thomas, is what you are saying is that the trust fund for SS is really only debt that the government has, there is no real money in the trust fund? If the money is already there, how can it be included in a debt?

Sorry, I really don't get this and could use your explaination or send me to a link and I will read up on it.

Why not just shout " abandon ship " that seems to be the republican strategy .. let the ship sink rather than increase tax on Corporations ... close Loopholes for Oil companies ... or increase taxes on the top 2%.........Good plan Boehner ..Let the ship sink .. throw gramps and granny under the bus .. let women with children go with out health care ... and while getting into the rafts .. remember to remind everyone that its rich and richer first

Let's think:

She pays for the diapers for the baby and pays the water bill. Total about $30 a month.

jenart, if you're going to mention eric cantor leaving as if he were a child not geting his way then you should remember the dems from wisconsin leaving cause of what they didn't like. i'm a liberal but i believe in being fair and to only mention the ones who aren't in your party is hypocritical.

this isn't about "new" taxes it's all about ending tax cuts for the wealthy and republicans aren't going to let that happen.

JC in G

"Sorry Eric,

It is that simple. If you have a debt problem, stop borrowing and start paying back what you owe."

Good sound advice. But- because things aren't static, but are allways in a state of change, let's add to this scenario. She does the right thing, and goes out and gets a job so she can pay off her debt. Good Girl. Responsible and all.

Through no fault of hers, the employer moves out of town- too far to commute to, and she winds up out of a job for now. You love her a lot- she's your daughter, for crying out loud. And, you ARE family and all, BUT- even thogh YOU are sitting on $100,000 cash in CDs' in your bank account, you should

1) help her out

2) tell her 'gee, honey, time's are tough, but I got mine, screw you- you are on your own.

For some reason the link didn't take, I'll try again:

"H"

DBO:
Did she stop using the credit card?

DBO:

Keep in mind that I am still giving her the $100 a month. I like that she took a job and I respect her initiative for trying to get her credit house in order.
I help her out. I give her some of my money to pay for the essentials. She can eat spagetti Os for dinner while I eat steak and shrimp. I still get to drive my BMW while she has to take the bus to her friends house. If she gets cold, I will give her one of my old jackets and I will go buy a new one for me. If she hasn't finished paying off her debt, I will help her make minimum payments until she gets a new job. If she does not get a new job, I will ask her to help out more at home, say plant a garden in the back yard, I'll even let her have half of the veggies she grows.

Am I being unreasonable? A bad father (American)?

I'm an economics professor and a liberal. Facts are not a conservatives strong suit. Talking down to people is a good way to seem like a jerk rather than prove your point Spanky.

sooooooooooooo, you're a socialist JC?

Anyone who has ever had a business knows it is not only about keeping cost down, but also raising revenue - and yet Republicans want the Government run like a business? No wonder people like Trump have filled for bankruptcy in dealing with their companies. Idiots need an IQ test...

jbro5c:

" Facts are not a conservatives strong suit." This is an opinion and would be construed by anyone on the receiving end as an insult.
" Talking down to people is a good way to seem like a jerk" Like by insulting them?

Instead of attacking the poster, how about using those economics smarticles and tell us what we should do when we are over our head in debt? Stop spending more than you have or just try to get more to spend?

HATR_HURTER:

I believe a true socialist would make everyone in the family eat cheeseburgers. As a compasionate capatalist, I would make sure that nobody starves, but if they are not willing to help, they sure don't get the goodies that I have worked hard for.

Answer to JC in G post 1.20

The government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This change resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activity.^[47] The surplus in Social Security trust funds offsets the total debt, making it appear much smaller than it otherwise would.

JC in G - your question(s) were pretty loaded. As you can see by DBO's response, this is not a cut and dried solution that you were trying to elicit from your questions.

As far as you being a bad father - not on your life. That is a variable that should NOT be in this equation in the first place.

But - if you equate what you are doing with your daughter with what we are dealing with concerning the economy, you really left out two variables that need to be added (my opinion).

The first thing is that if you daughter is in debt for $1000 and she only makes $100, and she decides to RAISE HER REVENUES by getting a 2nd job to pay off the card, then no other action is required on your part. Your daughter is being responsible by figuring out that to close the gap she is going to need MORE REVENUE to pay off the debt.

Now, she could cut her expenses ONLY, but what does that do to the debt? That debt is STILL THERE and itis not going anywhere.

The second thing is this - if your daughter realized that she is in a hole, but does NOT get a 2nd job but expects YOU to 'bail her out' because she is 'too cute to fail', then YOU have some decisions to make, and that may include having to have her ride the bus or use an old coat.

The point you make pretty clearly is this - JUST stopping spending is NOT the COMPLETE answer. We have to balance the equation. Not only does the credit card get taken away, but a 2nd job is a requirement to pay off the debt.

When we equate your daughter to the government, we HAVEN'T TAKEN THE CREDIT CARD AWAY - nor CAN we. Our complete money system is based on DEBT - where the Treasury creates bonds out of thin air and the Federal Reserve funds those bonds with money they create out of thin air. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if we cut spending because we will STILL have the debt. What will make a difference is that we need to RAISE OUR REVENUES to COVER our debt. Now, the United States will NEVER bein a position where there is no debt, mainly based on the fractional banking method that is described above.

Yeah, that is a scary thought - we will ALWAYS have debt. ALWAYS. Maybe this is why Then Vice-President Cheney stated that 'deficits don't matter'.

On a lighter note, your daughter probably is 'too cute to fail' and you cannot HELP but bail her out (yeah, and we know that she probably has you wrapped around her little finger). It seems fathers do that for their daughters.

Thanks Kuche!

So there you have it, the President does not need to have congress increase the debt ceiling, he can simply say that all the money in the SS trust fund is no longer a debt and this will reduce our current debt by that amount. This should give him a few more years of decifit spending before we get back to the debt ceiling. So someone needs to let the POTUS know about this. Anyone know his phone number?

" I would make sure that nobody starves, but if they are not willing to help, they sure don't get the goodies that I have worked hard for."

I'm with you, especially considering you wouldn't let anyone starve. BUT- there are real people in this country that WOULD, rather than 'share the wealth' even to such a small degree, JC. Sadly, there are.

And for some reason, the Republican party seems to attract 'em in droves.

I am for many of the cuts that are non essential, I am opposed to taking away medicare something I paid for as an insurance policy. Congress needs to make cuts in their salaries, pay for their health-care, and pay into a 401k plan as most of us have to for retirement. I have made cuts in my household, I no longer watch TV because satellite costs are too high. I could not justify having no health insurance, but have TV. It`s time to clean up from the top down not the bottom up.

Peitro,

I actually agree with most everything you say. I am not a economics professor so understanding global or a country economy is not my strong point. I agree that bringing in more money will help the government - we should hold of on the debate about where they need to get that money for a moment. (We have very different opinions on how to raise money, but we can certainly agree that we need to) I also see that you agree that we need to take the credit card away until we get back to some kind of reasonable debt. I guess the debate comes down to which one do we do first? My original point was that we need to take the credit card away first. Then we can work on a debt problem that is growing by more than we can ever imagine being able to pay back.

For instance, in the "My daughter" scenario, she charged up $1000. If she gets a job, we don't have to take away the credit card, but to be on the safe side, shouldn't we leave her credit limit around the $1000 mark?
If she doen't get a job or I am not willing to give her more allowance, I think we need to take her credit card away.

JC in G

You missed my point. You can not compare the debt your daughter has in her private life and the debt the government has in providing essential public services to 300+ million. You can cut up her credit card and she can work her way out of debt because she has you to fall back on for support.

Uncle Sam ain't so lucky.

But going off of your response, what about her and the baby? who provides housing? healthcare? life insurance? childcare? higher education?

Who pays? You? If so that essentially makes you the government services provider in the scenario you've tried to make a comparison with. If not you, is she expected to pay for these things on her own on top of the debt she has already accumulated? Or you said you provide for some of the financial help but expect her to provide for the minimal, but even the bus to get to a crappy job with no benefits and no future costs money, Dad. And the kid has to eat and needs new shoes, and you know how fast they grow!

How is getting what I would consider essential services like transportation, education, and childcare for a single mother possible on a 100$ subsidy a month without incurring debt accumulation when the prospects for a well paying job with benefits is almost non-existent without these services? Is it acceptable for her to be without these things in the wealthiest nation on the planet? Without additional financial help from you, or the babies father, or some public or private benefactor how does that effect her and her babies chances for future prosperity? If no help is forthcoming from these entities does your daughter wallow in poverty and become a drain on whatever public services are in place and by extension anyone who is paying to provide those services? Or should the entire burden fall just on you, her family member, as her debt mounts because she is unable to advance in skill level or marketability in the employment sector?

Your daughter is lucky she has you to supply her with hand me downs and a few dollars many are not so fortunate and the cycle of poverty continues.

Conservatives, why weren't you asking republicans during the Bush years from 2001 through 2006 to stop using the Visa card? Oh, yes, it really would have been that simple back then. We have a huge debt not because democrats created it but because for 6 years the GOP rubber stamped every spending program they wanted WITHOUT paying a single dime for it. Then when the economy collapses and Government must spend money to plug the private economic hole, the republicans speak of living within our means.

The debt is a problem but the debt will also decrease as the economy improves and thrives. Reducing and cutting too much now is a sure way to create an even bigger financial hole.

I realize it is none of my business but I wonder why anyone would give a child $100 a month AND a credit card just in case they need more. If it is financial responsibility one is trying to teach a youngster, then the best lesson is for them to learn how to allocate their allowance to last for the month. Any extra money that child needs should be a "loan" to them with the money taken from the future allowance. But comparing households and personal finances to government budgets is comparing oranges and apples.

However much conservatives wish to believe that Government of 50 states can operate just like a household budget, it is not true; never has been, never will be. Many households borrow money to buy cars, homes, etc and they do so in order to have a house, a car, a whatever because they need it, want it and, in most instances, have the income to pay it back. Government must have the ability to do the same thing--that's what the debt ceiling is. While I agree that reducing the debt is in our best interests for the future, just cutting up the credit card doesn't solve the problem. Even with Paul Ryan's budget plan, the debt ceiling would be raised multiple times before a dent was made--because that plan decreased revenues even further in the hopes that trickle down might actually trickle down. Trouble is trickle down has been proved a total failure.

80% think it's okay to place a surtax on millionaires, nearly 70% think the Bush tax cuts should expire on people making over $250K. And the Grover Norquist Repubs give us the middle finger again. Damn, I'm tired of them, we've got to get rid of them in 2012.

Spanky-

Yep.

I don't suppose you are going to explain what a default is to Feisty are you?

I know we are not supposed to talk about the past (since it causes you so much embarrassment) but please explain to me how did Bush pay off the debt...I mean, I am trying to understand the Republican way. Call me crazy, but I actually try to look at people's resumes BEFORE I hire them; the past is relevant to the future.

Has anyone replied to WHY the bloated defense spending isn't on the chopping block?

Did I miss it?

*crickets*

@JC in G

Here is the 5th option for your daughter that is getting $100 dollars a month. She could a part-time job to increase her revenue from $100 to $150 to pay off the debt a little faster. Take advantage of coupons so that her expenses would be lower and then she could apply more of the new and the old revenue to her debt.

IE the coupons would be the cuts to spending we have to have, and the part-time job would be a temporary tax hike to increase revenue. Ether way revenues are going to have to increase to get the debt down, bite the bullet now. The only reason the Republicans don't want to do it now is because if the economy improves even a little bit there is no way any of the Republicans running for President can beat Obama. The only one I would even consider voting for is Jon Huntsman, and that is because he is the most reasonable one there. He also has not changed his beliefs just to court the radical right just to get the nomination. McCain did that and you saw how his election turned out.

Lets think:

So if I have "Missed the point", then your opinion is that it is OK for the government to keep spending more money than it takes in. This is because the government is vastly more complex than my story about a girl that charged too much on her credit card.

Please explain to me what the future of a country that simply goes farther into debt is with no plan to slow it down or stop it. Is there never a time when the people that hold the debt say "Time to pay up. We'll take Alaska and Florida." or "We'll just take all that corn you got there."

Is that really what you are proposing???

Give them the corn. It's just tomorrow's memory of today's meal anyway.

So, how do you get a "plan" by walking away from the table because you didn't get your way? How is stating that you are totally unwilling to come to a reasonable compromise going to build a plan? Before you can have a plan both parties are going to have to be willing to give something. The dems said ok to 1.4 trillion in cuts that will bring this thing down in 10 years. The repubs replied with tossing grandma under the bus and handing MY retirement and healthcare over to their buddies who just tanked our economy. That dog isn't hunting.

Why are we only talking about eliminating tax breaks for the top 2%? The other tax cuts reduce revenues by 5x more. If the top 2% can revert to Clinton levels, all can. This doesn't even take into account all the people who pay no taxes.

Now what to do about the overspent daughter....

1. Take away the credit card.
2. Take the $20 from the older brother that just spends this on the younger brother to help pay the bill.
3. Give the baby an extra $50 so she has more money.
4. Stop giving any of the kids except the credit card daughter any money and give it to her.

What you forgot to mention is that she had given back $20 a month, decreasing her income in order to suck up to her parents. That also helped her get into debt. Why is this not something you guys are willing to talk about? Put that $20 back in the kitty, then talk to me about cutting my mother's benefits.

Please explain to me what the future of a country that simply goes farther into debt is with no plan to slow it down or stop it. Is there never a time when the people that hold the debt say "Time to pay up. We'll take Alaska and Florida." or "We'll just take all that corn you got there."

OK, JC in G - if you can identify exactly WHO owns the debt, then maybe we can figure out WHAT we can do about that debt.

Now, I have already posted that the Treasury generates bonds (created out of thin air) and that the Federal Reserve FUNDS those bonds with cash (also created out of thin air) at interest.

So who EXACTLY is holding the debt?

China? Europe? Africa?

If you can answer that question, then maybe we can explore the future of a country that has its very money system based on DEBT.

I get the idea of not spending more than you make, makes perfect sense to me, it makes some sense to run the government like a household, however does everybody pay cash for their house, or their cars, or fund their retirement in one fell swoop, or am I the only one who has taken on debt for certain big ticket items. I understand way to much debt, but the idea of zero debt is equally ridiculous to me households borrow. It comes down to what are you spending the borrowed money on, it could be a future valuable asset, or a bauble bound for the pawn shop.

I still don't know what happens if we go into default, I have heard all manner of doomsday scenarios and less. I know I never heard of anything good happening to someone has defaulted. I suspect 14 million unemployed people feel it can't get much worse for them, and that if rich people don't want to pay more taxes as part of the solution and the economy crashes then rich people will be the ones that have something to lose. If this was a poker game I would call their bet and raise them a little, Cantor is already all-in lets see who wants to put their chips in the middle.

tell us what we should do when we are over our head in debt? Stop spending more than you have or just try to get more to spend?

Both. It is what the democrats are in favor of. The republicans only see one way out. This is where we have a problem. If the democrats refused to cut any spending and only raise taxes then I would have a problem with that. But that is not the case. In this fight, it is the republicans that are being childish and pushing a my way or the highway approach. My way or the highway fails in politics every time.

LOL,

Well this has been fun. I posed a simple question of "Do we stop spending more than we have?" and there does not seem to be a consensus on that. If that is the starting point, that we can't agree if it is OK to continue to go farther and farther in debt or not, then I understand how adding politics, race relations, biases, religion.. into the mix means you can never agree on anything.

The problem is not that the Republicans took their ball and ran, or that the Democrats have a hidden agenda or whatever spin you would like to put on the current negotiations. The problem is that we can't agree that having debt continuously rise is even a problem. So without a starting point, looking for an end-point seems pretty fruitless.

I'm going to take my spendthrift daughter out for a nice middle of the road dinner while we still have a chance. And since a lot of people like to point out that Republicans just want to kill granny and steal from the middle class, I'm going to swing the car through the retirement home at the end of my street and aim for the first silver haired lady I see; then I'm going to pick the tips up off the other tables at the resteraunt because the waiter seems to be a little too Middle Classy for me and I want him to pay for the meal I can afford.

then your opinion is that it is OK for the government to keep spending more money than it takes in.

No! that is not at all my opinion so don't put words in my mouth.

with no plan

There are numerous plans to slow or reduce the debt the problem is getting an agreement that satisfies interested parties and still accomplishes the goal without destroying the long term future either by taxing too heavily or spending too freely.

It is easy to say just stop spending, but when more than 70% of the economy is based on consumerism that is not a viable option for the public or private sector.

It is about finding a balance that is sustainable and that does not happen without compromise on all sides. Taking it off the table and walking out is not in any way a position of compromise.

I'm going to swing the car through the retirement home at the end of my street and aim for the first silver haired lady I see

Make sure you yell 'Vote Bachmann, Bitches' after you run her down.

Re: the credit card/daughter scenario

I will try to state this as simply as possible for you:

It is ludicrous to compare a teenager and a credit card to a country's budget!

(The lack of basic background education and understanding here is amazing.)

A business bottom line is Profit.

A country's (its government) bottom line is People.

You cannot run a country as if it were a business. It must be run as a country.

You people who have sold your souls to Big Business have no clue!

JC in G, enjoy your dinner but be careful because I know that waiter you are stealing from and I know that she is in no way "a little too Middle Classy." She knows all too well that she is nothing more than a poor working slob with a kid to feed and bills to pay on $2.85/hour plus tips who kisses your ass while doing her job. I'm very concerned for you that she might just spit in your food.

JC in G...the problem with your analogy is that your daughter alone owns the debt and should repay. Sure, take her card and stop the bleeding. In our case, the US citizens own the debt.

Your choices were:

1. Give her a bigger allowance by taking some of my son's allowance and give it to her. Raise taxes, keep spending.
2. Take away her credit card. Stop spending
3. Ask the credit card company to increase her spending limit. Raise debt ceiling
4. Ask my rich uncle to pay her bill so that her credit rating is not blemished. Tax the rich only.

The problem with this is, the USA debt is owned by all of us. Not just the government. That money was spent on us. Don't try and play the "I don't see the money" card either. Sure, govt can overspend and overpay themselves, but the money was still spent by people we elected to spend the money on our behalf. If we are in debt, we all owe the money.

TO: Spanky who wrote:

“Spending more than you have is stupid…”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^’

Then WHY do Republicans ALWAYS do it? I suppose you’re one of those who can’t recall that Republicans walked into the White House where Democrats had left surpluses in Social Security and the Treasury. By the time Republicans LEFT the White House, jobs were being lost at the rate of millions per month, the deficit was sky high, and we owed China TRILLIONS.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

“…Economics and especially math are not the libbies' strong suits.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As you know, you’re wrong about that too. Must we again go over ALL of the successes of the Democratic Clinton Administration?

I don’t know how Republicans could EVER claim to be good at anything when their memories are so lousy.

JC- you have made some good points with your scenario. Others have made some good points also. All in all, it's been one of the more enjoyable Friday afternoons on here. Thanks for starting this dialog. Tell you what: You send your daughter over to my place, and if she helps me hoe the danged green beans, I'll share a bowl with her when it's time to pick 'em.

Enjoy your weekkend.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Has anyone replied to WHY the bloated defense spending isn't on the chopping block?

Because Gates is trying to dismantle it from within the inside. (Six thousand jobs set to be lost at Joint Forces alone)

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/08/jfcom-consultant-decries-pentagondirected-hit-job

There are allot of cuts coming out of the Pentagon that aren't being reported by the media, mainly because of the different projects classification levels. The Pentagon is seeing their budget get cut.

I guess these two are finished jerking each other off and are now back to jerking off the people they are suppose to be representing. If I had my way, these two along with a dozen or more of these politicians would be hauled off to the city dump where they all rightfully belong.

Did those of you who whine about increasing taxes on the wealthy without cutting spending ("I wouldn't support an increase in taxes to pay off the debt, without a commesurate decrease in overall spending.") Did you miss the part in the article that said "While Republicans and Democrats have agreed on substantial spending cuts, the issue of taxes to raise revenue remains at an impasse."? No one is suggesting raising taxes without cutting spending. How many businesses who find themselves in financial difficulty get out by cutting spending alone? Increasing revenue is always part of the equation. DataLink is correct "Anyone who has ever had a business knows it is not only about keeping cost down, but also raising revenue - and yet Republicans want the Government run like a business?" Once again the GOP is holding the country hostage to their ideology. Don't be surprised when it all falls apart.

The liberals here continue to call for raising taxes on others as opposed to raising taxes on everyone. Don't you think it's time we all, and I mean all, shared the burden of this country's debt? Isn't it time we changed our tax laws so that every citizen pays the same fair share of their income for the privilege of living in this country? Every one of us should pay the same percentage of their income, no matter how large or small that income is. Matters not to me whether that income is from a government welfare system, a job, or a business here at home or offshore someplace. In the end, the rich will pay more because they make more. But they will not be taxed disproportionately just because they are successful. Along with that, all entitlements must be self supporting and their money should be protected from being raided by our politicians to satisfy bad policy or to serve special interests. Our government does need to be run more like a business, just like those of us here in real life must do in order to support ourselves and our families. If the citizens of this country were convinced that we are all being treated fairly and our government faces the fact that it cannot be everything to everyone, I believe raising taxes will be easily swallowed by the populace and at some point can be lowered to below what they are today. It's time we all shared the burden equally.

American Girl, Thanks, good points,

We are locked in the middle of a playground bullying session. I have NEVER been so disgusted with the GOP. Bush threw the re-write of "Trickle-Down, Voodoo" economics on us and no one seemed to mind until the economy slid into the toilet. If this is what we have to expect from the GOP, I am GLAD I am no longer a Republican.
The super-rich need to step up, so far the only two who have are Warren Buffet and, of all people, Bill Gates.
I am all for a straight income-tax system, with no loopholes or exemptions, of 10%. If local communities keep sales taxes at a reasonable rate, we could see a nearly immediate result. The IRS could be reassigned to policing and enforcing that EVERYONE is paying their fair share...hell, if we did that, we could use the old tax code documents as a source of fuel for a year or two. We could even use the red-tape to repave half the roads in the US (joke).
Truth is, Levelling the taxes on those making over $1 Million would just about take care of the deficit all by itself in 12 months.

The GOP/TP are showing who they are again, that's all. They are for corporate subsidies, they are for off-shoring of American jobs, and they are for tax loopholes that favor the rich. They are not, never have been, and never will be for Main Street and the middle class.

Cantor is playing politics--he is trying to avoid taking responsibility for being responsible (going against the unconstitutional Grover Norquist pledge). Cantor only looks like a selfish backstabber throwing other Republican leaders under the bus, but he and Boehner both are trying to force President Obama to take all the heat for raising taxes. Of course the president is smarter than them and never falls for their chicken crap.

Most of all the GOP/TP are hypocrites.

They worship Reagan, but Reagan increased taxes--specifically the tax base. For the simplistic conservatives, the tax base is different from tax rates. If discussing tax code reform, and how to make it fair, loopholes and credits must be eliminated = increasing the tax base. By increasing the tax base we can keep tax rates lower, for everyone.

As for math, it is conservatives who fail. Everyone else knows there are two parts to the deficit equation, spending AND revenue. People like Krugman, Warren Buffet, heck even Stephen Hawking will tell you this, and I guarantee you none of these guys are Teabaggers. In fact, to show opposition to the Grover Norquist tax pledge, U.S. billionaires have signed "The Giving Pledge."

Also (JC, you are only a legend in your own mind) there is a difference between micro and macro economics, as has been pointed out--Government does not operate like a household budget. Which brings up the next item of GOP/TP hypocrisy of wanting to go back in time and supposedly have a Pay-Go (per Pelosi's proposal) system. If Republicans won't put Bush's wars and defense spending on the table--and instead of playing politics with Libya--here's two words for them:

War Bonds

I suspect President Obama is waiting for pressure on Republicans to draw down and end the wars. Yep, every time these GOP/TP idiots go home, they are hearing from their conservative constituents to end spending on wars. The truth is, these same constituents will blame the GOP/TP for default if Republicans don't start compromising in good faith and include revenues in debt reduction. The lip service game Cantor, et al are playing is already damaging the economy bad enough.

Actually, if the president/Dems could get the votes to increase the tax base by ending corporate subsidies (Big Oil) and loopholes that allow the rich to evade taxes, their approval rating would go up in the polls. We all know the GOP/TP don't want Democrats to succeed at anything, whether debt reduction or job creation or anything that will improve the economy and lower unemployment.

Look at the GOP field for POTUS. It is so pitiful, the only hope Republicans have is if there is a crappy economy in 2012. It's obvious--except to their base who gets their information exclusively from FOX, Hate Radio, etc. (or as Chris Wallace Admitted that Fox News Tells 'The Other Side' Of The Story -- NOT fair and balanced, but severely skewed).

These Republican jagoffsjust need to be better exposed. FOX won't do it, so we just need to find a way around that filter. Announcement to FR readers: Republicans are jagoffs.

Grow a pair and call 'em on it Dems, let the Repubs run this country off the cliff and you can win elections for the next 50 years, hands down, just make sure to get the vote on paper so you can prove it....it's so funny the Repub reason given is, "We don't pass this debt on to my kid's and grandkid's" and guess what the default of the entire US debt does, you dumbasses?? "What US, oh yeah, we used to have a country but people didn't put any taxes or long term investing into it, to later get something out of it, we had a small percentage of the country that wanted to get it all now, short sellers if you will, instead of long term investment into their own country"....it's give and take people and if the Repubs haven't learned that yet, oh well, suffer your own decisions an the hands of the people, the voting hand that is and God Bless the US!!

PS: "Hey Eric Cantor, What did you do with the money your Mom gave you??" "What money??" The money she gave you to fix your face" hahahahaa....Would someone please tell Eric Cantor to do something with that face or to get some new glasses or something, please!!

Hey, where'd our now professor friend go?

I was hoping he could educate us. But alas, gone.

But I did like the "I a professor and a liberal."

Yeah, there's a surprise. I'm sure he has a lot of real world experience he could share.

Oh wll, guess we'll never know.

Hey, looky there, see how the revenue number is way bigger than the debt number? Do you understand that means that all the debt can easily be paid. And that if the debt is paid, then there would of course be no default.

Then I guess there's no need for budget cuts either.

"When they show you who they are...believe them!"

In addition to War Bonds...

Up to the Vietnam war, we did not maintain a standing all-volunteer military like we do now--thus the draft. I have three members of my family currently serving and heaven knows they aren't raking in big bucks any more than teachers, but like teachers, they are federal employees that make up so-called Big Government. We need to rely on the draft again, and I'd like to see creeps like Governor Walker go after reductions in bases instead of just teachers.

Once again, instead of Republican cuts for things like flak jackets for our military, let's draw down in Afghanistan (leave enough to keep an eye on Pakistan), leave Iraq completely, remove Gaddafi and get out of Libya, and start down-sizing bases around the world.

Anyone remember when the bi-partisan debt committee got together 1-2 months ago, and they said there were no sacred cows when it comes to tackling this problem? Apparently something as simple as raising taxes is a sacred cow. It's ok repugs. You can raise taxes too. Your constituents are not gonna stop voting for you if you do. As long as you're honest about it, and not a liar like the elder Bush. I think the general public understands that raising some taxes across the board will be necessary to eliminate this issue. So, who exactly are the repugs trying to appease in not even considering raising taxes? Of course, they're probably all for raising taxes on the poor and middle class, but hands off the rich and corporate taxes and loopholes.

"But more than 80 percent said placing a surtax on those making more than $1 million was acceptable, and nearly 70 percent were supportive of phasing out the Bush tax cuts for families earning $250,000 per year or more."

In other words, 70 - 80% of the people say that higher taxes are fine - for someone else.

How about taking a poll of how many people think they would like a free lunch, vs how many want to pay for it.

Or perhaps we could take a poll of people in Oregon on whether people in California should pay higher taxes.

You would probably get the same results.

The Republican Congressmen and some people on this site protest to loudly with raising taxes on the wealthy. I guess they have the money to hide along with filling the deep lobbyists pockets. It's so obvious that protecting the wealthy is their main objective, and the rest of the people or the economy is the least of their concerns other than to place all the cutbacks on their various programs. Ya think the voters will remember this for the next election?

@ Lanakai Ron -- We will need to increase taxes for everyone, but we need to do it in stages. Because we've had a decade of "trickle down" or rather "flood up" taxes, the middle class is almost non-existent now. One of many variables for a democracy, or even fair market economy (free market doesn't work), is to have a thriving middle class. The American Dream, or hope of moving up in socio-economic status is not just to become a millionaire, but really it's for those in poverty to move up to the middle class.

Income inequality in America is the worst we've seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2877&catid=22 -

Likewise to the poster who suggests a 10% flat tax -- Flat taxes, or even worse sales taxes, will never work because a fair tax code must take into account proportion of income or ratio of income spent on basic needs. Right now I'm hoping for Jan Schakowsky's bill.

JC -

Your overly retarded example only works if the government is spending money on superficial, non-necessities (like oil subsidies - oh wait, you support those).

However, that is not how the government works. Change it up . . .

You give your daughter $100 a month. She spends it on necessities for life, food, housing, etc. and also donates $5 a month to a family fund. THEN she comes down with an illness requiring a $1000 doctor bill. Her life is on the line. She puts it on your credit card. Now she is behind, in debt, and still required to put the $100 towards necessities and $5 in the family fund. Do you . . .

1) Tell her she should have been more responsible and take away her credit card, thus forcing her to give up ALL necessities? (food, housing, etc)

2) Tell her she should have been more responsible and force her to cut out only food from her spending? (Maybe she can afford to lose a little weight)

3) Tell her she should have been more responsible and force her to cut out only housing from her expenses? (Living on the street builds character)

4) Tell the rest of the family to increase their family fund donation to $10 to help out sister, until she can get back on her feet and also put $10 in the fund? (Nice, moral, family values answer. She gets help and comes back to contributing to the family)

Now you will probably choose number 4 because . . . well, she is your daughter and I would assume she comes before money (although I could be wrong, based on your posts I would not be surprised if you sold your children to make a buck).

But wait, your Republican son stands up and says: "F**K THAT B**CH. Why should I help her? It's not my fault she got sick. Maybe she should have taken better care of herself. She is just a lazy, fat, worthless pies of s**t anyways. Our home would be better off without her. Let her DIE. She should just cut out food, or live on the streets. I don't give a F**K what happens to that stupid C**T. Not my problem. I worked for my money, and I am keeping it."

Then your wife (who actually has love in her heart, unlike you and your son) says: "We need to help each other out, that is what we do as a moral family. What if hard times come to you? Will you not seek the same help? Would you not ask us to help get your back on track so that you can continue to contribute to the family."

So, JC . . . who do you support? Your wife who wants to help your daughter by giving her a handout to get her back on track, so she can once again contribute to the family? Or do you support your Republican son who wants to keep his money and is fine with letting "that c**t die"?

Who do you support, JC?

(story time is fun)

we need to raise taxes AND make REAL cuts in federal spending (IMO about 20%), why don't the Republicans get it?

I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face if I have to.

There should be NO debate as to what we cut or increase or deal with.

We had a balanced, functioning budget under Clinton.

Bush started 2 wars, enacted Medicaid, and initiated tax cuts without funding ANYTHING.

Then he tanked the economy and blew billions with bank bailouts which basically tanked any Obama agenda and made absolutely sure we would be where we are today. We wouldn't be any better off under McCain... maybe worse. It was set in concrete by the GOP with Bush and Cheney.

So here's the REAL problem:

1. We have two unfunded wars. Fund them. War bonds. War taxes. If not, then get out. Simple. How does it make sense to cut Medicare and/or Social Security to fund 2 wars?

2. We have unfunded Medicaid. Its a great program, but the legislation was never finished. Fund it. Raise taxes. Charge fees like an insurance company. FUND IT or drop it. If it's worth it, then find or create the funds.

3. Kill these ridiculous tax cuts. Tax cuts are effective as a minor morale booster and nothing else. They may have been the right thing to do to get us off "flat growth" after 911, but they are wrong now... our income sucks. Even businesses don't cut income by having a sale without absolute proof of a sale's effectiveness.

4. Get on a plan to recover the economy and stick with it and SUPPORT the damn thing. We will go nowhere as long as either side demonizes the other side's solution. We need CONSUMER CONFIDENCE but can only get half the consumers at a time due to our hateful polarization. Fixing the tax revenue side of the equation by economic stimulus is the ONLY thing that will fix the revenue and debt issues.

I refuse to give on inch of ground to the GOP in their endeavor to cut social programs... especially since THEY were the ones that got us here... they were the ones that said "deficits don't matter" (to quote Cheney)... they were the ones that haven't stuck to a budget in decades... and now THEY are the "responsible" ones? Bull Sh!t! They are the extortionists. They are holding my 401K hostage so they can cut my Medicare and Social Security...

Can't people see the idiocy in all this?

bayllie

Spanky-

Yep.

I don't suppose you are going to explain what a default is to Feisty are you?

I know we are not supposed to talk about the past (since it causes you so much embarrassment) but please explain to me how did Bush pay off the debt...I mean, I am trying to understand the Republican way. Call me crazy, but I actually try to look at people's resumes BEFORE I hire them; the past is relevant to the future.

Friend--that's a legitimate question. Bush paid nothing on the debt and decreased revenues--in a GOP fashion. They use the term "tax and spend" when they speak of us on the left--while they spend and do not tax appropriately.

What really pisses me off is that the majority of the people in the U.S. don't have any problems with raising taxes for the more wealthy citizens and doing away with the tax cuts for those making over $250,000, but the Republicans won't abide by the concensus. If I were the boss, I'd fire their asses in a heartbeat! They were sent to do a job, but they obviously refuse to do what their constituents want to see being done!! What a bunch of arrogant idiots! At the rate they're going, they will NEVER get a Republican vote again....except for the TB party, who really has NO concept of right or wrong and are funded by the Koch Bros. anyway!! What is going on in Washington D.C. is just ridiculous, and there seems to be nothing the average person can do except to sit at home and become exceedingly angry at the ineptness of our so-called leaders!!!

Well I see the libs are out picking pockets again ... Tax "anybody but me" is their slogan.

Tell you what ... FIRST reduce the spending! If you do that you've done more than any other Democraps in my lifetime. Then, if you want to talk about some sort of tax reform that REPLACES the existing IRS tax brackets (maybe something akin to a consumption tax or a flat tax) I'd say go for it I'm open to discussion.

But JC's point's are well taken. First you stop spending.

Oh and Feisty ... two points, first where's the Presidential leadership in all this. He send's his second stringer to lead? Right! Joe has enough problems working 24 hours without a gaff! Secondly, last I heard EVERYTHING is on the table which includes military spending.

And a final point ... so the Prez commissions this Debt Commission. Then, when it returns something he doesn't want to hear he ignores it. The truth is, folks, a significant portion of the Democrats in congress also see the need to cut spending. Why do you think Harry hasn't put a budget resolution on the floor of the Senate ??? Because "his" version wouldn't pass! Remember the Dems still run the Senate.

LMarcT "3. Kill these ridiculous tax cuts."

Try telling the middle and poor classes that you're going to raise their taxes by $310 Billion per year (about $4,000 per year for the typical family of 4).

I think they might have a problem with your idea.

So the line has been drawn in the sand...

Translation: If we don't GET OUR way we will push the nuclear option and collapse the global economy!

America are you paying attention? Which party is unwilling to partake in COMPROMISE?

Hint - it's NOT us liberal

This coming from the very same people who campaign every two years as 'REAL AMERICANS'!

Yeah RIIIGHT!

Funny how the dems play the compromise card when they're in the minority, but it's ram their ideology down the repubs throats when they have a majority and compromise be damned. Remember, "they can sit in the back seat."

With regard to the repubs walkout, it's now being reported the repubs walked out when the dems proposed not just increasing the max tax rate to the old 39.6% rate but proposing to also eliminate all deductions for individuals above the 28% rate bracket, which means no deductions for mortgage interest, taxes, charitable contributions, medical deductions, nada. This would increase the max federal rate to approximately 50%; if a taxpayer lives in a 10% state and local income tax state, that's an aggregate 60% federal, state and local income tax rate. That's not eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich (even though everyone got a tax decrease with the Bush tax cuts) that's insanity!

A balanced budget constitutional amendment may be an idea whose time has come, but a max tax constitutional amendment, which mandates the maximum combined federal, state and local income tax which may be assessed to individuals, is just as relevant and just as timely.

Spanky - You wanted someone to explain default for you? If the US doesn't raise the debt ceiling, then the building interest will push the debt higher then the US can pay and the US will either be late or miss a debt payment. This will drop our bond rating and increase the loan rates that the US will have to pay. We would be in the same boat as Greece with no one able to help us. Since the global markets are all based on the US dollar as the standard, any severe devaluation of the dollar would cause sheer panic, if not a complete collapse, of the global markets.

spanky thinks he knows everything,ay spank where were you when the rethugs destroyed our country under w?Under a rock...NOW YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS THAT THIS PRESIDENT CREATED IN 2 YEARS?(when in realty he inherited all this b.s. from w)!....The rational answer is this President was handed down a country that was destroyed(rethugs are good at pillaging) by w and cheney and their minions....You spanky and all the rest of you tea-baggers are quick to blame, go after this CIC,blaming him for our nation's woes...DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THE 2 YEARS THIS PRESIDENT HAS BEEN IN OFFICE HE COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND & SAY ALL WOES CREATED BY GOP RETHUGS GO AWAY!.......2 YEARS!....All this quarterbacking now?!...But not when a rethug President was in office...Oh Nooooooo they cant do nothing wrong........I want to see the reactions of these arm-chair wanna-be's when the President wins and takes the oath of office in 2013..................Obama/biden 2012

JC in G

Your analogy of your daughter with a credit card in no way can be compared to our economy. Obviously you've never had a lesson in Econ 101, 102, etc. If you did, you'd realize that "failure to raise the Debt Ceiling" has extreme consequences. By the way, Congress increased the Debt Ceiling 7 times under W. Bush, 4 times under Clinton and 10 times under Reagan and H. Bush.

The only reason the Republicans are making these idle threats is they know it will allow President Obama's policies to be a success. If you and all other Republicans are ready for the 2nd Great Depression, then don't push for raising the Debt Ceiling.

Factories will close, business's will close, no gas, unemployment will be at about 98%, the dollar will be worthless, etc. Take 2 Economics courses before you use an analogy that in no way reflects "Our Failure To Raise The Debt Ceiling".

Mr Dewey,

Congress increased the Debt Ceiling 7 times under W. Bush, 4 times under Clinton and 10 times under Reagan and H. Bush.

... how arrogant your assertion that "only an Econ major" can describe the problem! The problem is contained within your own statement. We only borrow and we never reduce spending. Personally, I don't consider them idle threats. We must get our spending in line! And no ... that doesn't automatically translate to "raise taxes".

Spanky-

JC - you are wasting your time.

Economics and especially math are not the libbies' strong suits.

I am a lib and I used to be able to solve differential equations in my head. Kind of makes you look stupid doesnt it?

You dont want to raise taxes to help cover our debt and deficits but will be the first person to bitch and moan when your house burns down because your local fire department was laid off due to budget cuts.

Astonished-655682

Mr Dewey,

Congress increased the Debt Ceiling 7 times under W. Bush, 4 times under Clinton and 10 times under Reagan and H. Bush.

... how arrogant your assertion that "only an Econ major" can describe the problem! The problem is contained within your own statement. We only borrow and we never reduce spending. Personally, I don't consider them idle threats. We must get our spending in line! And no ... that doesn't automatically translate to "raise taxes".

.. how stupid of you not to realize that any comprehensive plan to get out debts under control must involve both cuts and tax increases.

Apparently you are far short of an econ major.

These whining Republicans had absolutely no issue with raising the debt ceiling for Bush while he was spending us into this mess.

People need to remember that raising the debt ceiling next month is to pay for past Bush debts. Where were the complaints from the Republicans when Bush was in office creating the exact reason why the debt ceiling needs to be raised right now? I thought they supported Bush and Cheney's crazy spending and now it's time to pay for it.

Raising the debt ceiling next month is not to cover Obama's spending, we're still trying to pay off Bush's debt and we will be paying it off and raising future debt ceilings just to get rid of that.

Spanky, what happens when you are late or don't pay your credit card? The interest rate jumps and the debt costs much more. Exactly what we need to reduce the deficit! NOT

I would like to know where all these people that want to cut the debt were while Bush doubling it.

To JC in G and the rest of you that want to put out straw man examples, when you run up a debt that is larger than your budget you have to pay more to pay it off. You want to use the example that you only take in so much money so you can only spend so much but that logic is flawed simply because there is more money that can be tapped to pay off the debt. It's called taxes. I know, a dirty word to Republicans but you ran up the bulk of the deficit so you need to help pay it off. The Republicans have historically been the ones that have ran up the deficit the most (Reagan, Bush #1 and #2) and are the ones that don't want to reach into their pockets to pay it off. G W Bush was guilty of pushing through a tax cut that benefited the wealthy the most then proceeded to borrow and spend like there was no problem. Now you want to cut programs to the lowest income people in the country so the rich can get richer. Probably so they can spend more money to get more Republicans in power so they can do a better job abd breaking the economy the next time.

You say you don't want your money going to help the poor. Well it's not, your money is going to finance the war machine. My tax dollars are going to help the poor. Republicans want to cut Social Security but it has always been self funded until the latest lost of a million plus good paying jobs due of the Republican policies and incompetents.

Lots of political rhetoric here, most of it seems to be coming from the Right. Last year, after all our credits and deductions, and accounting for the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax, my wife and I paid roughtly 12% of our gross income in federal taxes. I would describe our income as middle class; our combined gross was in the $60K range. I would grudgingly accept paying another percent or two, if the corporations paid, the wealthy paid, and realistic spending cuts were implemented. This problem took decades to create, Republicans want people to believe we can change it in one budget cycle. We need a long term plan, not more rhetoric.

But here's the real kicker. Of all the Republican supporters who keep chanting "cut the budget," no one ever says what to cut, other than some comment about lazy people getting handouts, or "overpaid government employees." It seems to me that Republicans want to cut programs favored by the Left, and protect their own pet programs. They scream about a few hundred million for Planned Parenthood and NPR, but the billions in federal grants for faith based charity is off the table. Why is that? They want to protect tax breaks for oil companies and farm subsidies, but they want to cut programs that support teachers and education.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither.

Obama had some great ideas on the debt limit and spending in 2006 when he was a Senator. Let's take a look;

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of
leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not 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."

SENATOR BARACK H. OBAMA, MARCH, 2006

He then voted AGAINST increasing the debt limit.

I wish my husband and I made $250,000, but it's not even close, or should I wish for that. In truth if you make $250,000 they will get to keep less of their money than I do now....So I guess I am rich. If you went to buy a new car and the dealer said that they were adding an additional $1000 to the price of your car because someone else buying a car needed air conditioning and couldn't afford it you would tell them to take that car and stick where the sun doesn't sun. That is exactly what we are doing to these people. They can NOT help that I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to make more money, it's not their problem. Everyone who is an American citizen needs to pay their fair share that includes the 50% who pay nothing but at the end of they year gets more back than they paid in.

Remember just 35 days until Obama and Geithner, who are both rich and controls how our money is spent will be cutting off payments to the elderly and military personnel, but will continue give money to the EPA and pay legislators their paychecks.

They don't make Republicans like the used to:

No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living, and hours of labor short enough so that after his day's work is done he will have time and energy to bear his share in the management of the community. We keep countless men from being good citizens by the conditions of life by which we surround them.
- Theodore Roosevelt

It is essential that there should be organizations of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize.
- Theodore Roosevelt

The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. Again, comrades over there, take the lesson from your own experience. Not only did you not grudge, but you gloried in the promotion of the great generals who gained their promotion by leading the army to victory. So it is with us. We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.

-Theodore Roosevelt

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Theodore Roosevelt

And think for a minute who will benefit from a federal default? The wealthy and the bankers. When the interest rates goes up, their greed sucks more of the life blood out of this country. The usury laws need to be reinstated and the interest held at a maximum of 2% for any kind of debt. All existing debt should be rolled back to that amount. How much will a bank pay you for the use of your money?

jbr05c

I'm an economics professor and a liberal. Facts are not a conservatives strong suit. Talking down to people is a good way to seem like a jerk rather than prove your point Spanky.

As a C-ring executive I'd say that statement is the funniest in the whole string. A liberal professor of economics, worked in the private sector much? I doubt it.

I am curious what you tax and spend liberals think a fair tax rate is. Please enlighten me as to what you think is fair to take from me. (I make more than the $250K number.) If you want 10% more, realize that is roughly $2k a month more for the government to waste on what? Entitlements? More giveaways that do nothing? Economics Prof will tell you that subsidies are create false economies right Doc. How about 20% then.? That would be about $4k a month the government is taking from me to waste. Are you going to guarantee me that they only spend it on paying down the debt? Will you support a balanced budget then? Revenue in - debt payments - cost of government = zero or positive $$. Who is on board with that?

Now let me tell you what I think a fair tax is. A fair tax is a one where everyone pays. Sounds fair, everyone who benefits from our government has to pay something, even if it is $50 a year it is more than about half of our population is paying. Think about that, half of us are NOT paying taxes. Even the Economics Prof has studied this point where the electorate is 50-50 pay in versus not and it is a dangerous place.

I tell you what, raise my taxes all you want but I require one thing....If you pay no taxes you cannot vote.

Our founding fathers thought this was a good idea, no land owned = no vote. Interesting how that part is not discussed these days.

Spanky- "Please explain Feisty how not raising the debt ceiling = collapse of the global economy. Heck just explain default. Start with the amount of revenue the gov. receives. Now subtract the amount of existing debt service. THis would be the cost of the existing debt - how much we pay. Hey, looky there, see how the revenue number is way bigger than the debt number? Do you understand that means that all the debt can easily be paid. And that if the debt is paid, then there would of course be no default."

Here is some information to put your argument in perspective;

The total spending for last year (2010) was $3.721 Trillion, which was $729 Billion (25%) higher than the spending in 2008 (including the wars). In 2010, total interest payments by the federal government were only $188 Billion. If the government can't find $188 Billion of that $729 Billion increase in spending to avoid defaulting on our debt, then we need new people in charge in Washington.