We raised the debt ceiling 11 times during the Bush administration. Why must we play these childish games of chicken.

Are you sure, UAW? From everything I've heard, the President has put all topics on the table, including Social Security and Medicare. Republicans, not so much.

Speaker Boehner: "I think the situation that we face is pretty urgent. Matter fact, I think I would describe it as dire."

Why then, if the situation is so "dire," won't the Speaker at least CONSIDER going back to the Clinton-era tax rates, which, from everything I have also heard, would immediately change the situation from "dire" to important, but readily solvable. It seems to me that the ball is firmly in Boehner's court, but he has failed to control his point guard (Eric Cantor).

How they sell it is their business, but the immediate solution is right in front of their noses. It's NOT "dire."

It's a game

"We raised the debt ceiling 11 times during the Bush administration..."

....and now, the GOP gives a different kind of 'hand gesture' to the great Citizens of the United States of America!

I wish you would find something we can argue about Anna Molly. The problem is with both sides though and politics is driving everything.

My problem with raising any taxes is that we cannot trust our reps to be good stewards with the money. The term "drunken sailor" comes to mind.

Its not a childish game of chicken. It has to be done because we are at the point where incoming revenues are insufficient to pay the interest on the debt. The time to pay the piper has come. SUPPORT THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!!! STOP THE DEFICIT SPENDING.

Hey UAW, maybe of Cantor, McConnell and Boehner were better leaders they could bridge the divide. Slim chance of that though. Don't you recall McConnell's "Obama a one term President" strategy?

Naw, ya'll done forgot about that and put it all on Obama. Simpletons?

From everything I've heard

If anyone is listening to the MSM, you're just getting the propaganda being put out by the White House. We're all still waiting to see a comprehensive plan from the Democrats and Obama. One doesn't and never has existed. That's all you get is leaked "information" about "what is on the table". This is just propaganda and it should just be ignored.

You did got some information from a valid source, Boehner in this case. As the Speaker says they're not even close to a deal. How could they be, they are trying to decide the fate of trillions of dollars in 90 minutes of talks yesterday. That's barely enough time to get a cup of coffee and a fancy White House pastry.

These talks, at best, may result in an extension of some sort. Legislation done quickly is usually bad legislation - See 2009 Reinvestment and Recovery Act for details .

That Speaker Boehner would cancel recess because he wants to consider the balanced budget amendment is a demonstration of how far out of touch the GOP is. by not focusing entirely on the debt ceiling vote, Rep. Boehner is diverting attention to a piece of pointless political posturing.

A balanced budget will NOt get through the Senate, and as a practical function of operating a large, modern nation-state, proposing a balanced budget is an offensive waste of valuable time. A balanced budget obligation is an utter absurdity.

First, let's deal with the basic point where people disconnect: A governmnet is NOT a household, and NOT a business. It has entirely different operating purposes and fuctions, and must employ a sophisticated financial system as part of fulfilling its purpose.

Long-term debt, deficit financing, and other fiscal elements are essential to a major modern nation-state.

Look at history to understand why.

The first form of a "national debt" funded with deficit financing and essentially a "revolving credit" line took shape in 1694 when the Bank of England was formed to provide a stable credit establishement for Britain. It was driven at that time by the chronic problems of financing British wars, especially the Royal Navy, which at that time was running a permanent arrears to shipbuilders, shipyard workers, victuallers, sailors and officers. The evils of the situation at times meant that crews were basically kept aboard ship for two or more years at a time, even when their ships might be tied up in home port for months or more for repairs, supplies, or weather.

Through the 1700's an evolving system of state financing kept Great Britain (created by the Act of Union of 1707) in an increasingly-capable condition compared to her adversaries, Spain and France. Even though the loss of the American Revolution and accompanying continental war was crushingly expensive with a relative state debt far greater than that of the U.S. today, deficit spending accompanied by increased state revenues dedicated to debt retirement meant that the country was able to financially survive embargo and battle a massive prolonged war leading to Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

Essentially, deficits and debt built the British Empire.

The United States has always run a national debt, and usually has had a deficit budget balance, too. This began with independence and continues to this day.

The idea of the "balaced budget" is another ideological attempt by the rigid right to prevent the government from functioning. It is impractical and a diversion from the actual business of the legislature. it is pre-election posturing and an affront to the people who voted for RESULTS rather than rhetoric.

kirby: My problem with raising any taxes is that we cannot trust our reps to be good stewards with the money.

The pols in Washington have overspent the taxpayers money for decades. The Liberals answer to the problem? Send the pols in Washington even more money. And I bet the pols will promise on their dying mothers bible that they'll put the extra tax money towards the deficit/debt. We can trust them, right?

This comment does have a lot of accurate mature thoughts...much more than Boehner and that McConnell. He never says anything that is not GOBBLYGOOK.

JAS1,

"they are trying to decide the fate of trillions of dollars in 90 minutes of talks yesterday"

A statement like this just proves how short your attention span is. this conversation and the continued blackmail by the Republicans has been going on for months.

John A: That Speaker Boehner would cancel recess because he wants to consider the balanced budget amendment is a demonstration of how far out of touch the GOP is. by not focusing entirely on the debt ceiling vote, Rep. Boehner is diverting attention to a piece of pointless political posturing

The debt ceiling is the balanced budget amendment. Without raising it, the government cannot borrow any money, it can only spend what it takes in. By definition, that makes the budget balanced.

Let’s say the CEO of the largest corp in the world aka the US Govnt decided one day to loan the largest banking industry in the world $700 billion dollars to help the economy recover and hire more people. Then the next day this CEO jumps on a his private 767 jet dubbed Air Force one and proceeds to bitch about that industry for the next 2.5 years straight. Surprisingly the economy hasn’t recovered and unemployment is higher……

VOTE FOR A NEW CEO IN 2012!

JAS1 - You are, as usual, ENTIRELY WRONG.

The debt ceiling does NOTHING to balance the budget. It is a statutory tool intended to require the Aministration to appear before Congress to obtain further authorization for adding to the debt - it does not in any sense affect deficits or debt. It was created in 1917 as part of a war funding measure the Congress passed.

What refusing to raise the debt ceiling will do is to force the government to operate on a "current receipts" basis until receipts exceed expenditures, or until the U.S. defaults on its credit obligations. Default will essentially destroy the country, and bring down the global economy again. Now, maybe YOU interpret that as a "balaced budget," but in fact a budget in default is NOT balanced - while operating on current receipts is again not balanced inasmuch as it ignores unfunded obligations of the government.

Your statement again reflects your monumental ignorance.

Which right wing pundit is quoted below?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

"let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth."

"In his brief remarks after Thursday’s meeting, by the way, Mr. Obama seemed to reiterate the Herbert Hooveresque view that deficit reduction is what we need to “grow the economy.”

Do you agree with them?

John A: What refusing to raise the debt ceiling will do is to force the government to operate on a "current receipts" basis until receipts exceed expenditures.

Yeah, like I said, a balanced budget.

John A: Now, maybe YOU interpret that as a "balaced budget," but in fact a budget in default

The country takes in about $200 billion a month in tax revenue. The service to the debt is about $14 billion a month, on average (depends when the bonds come due). So you need about 7% of the incoming tax revenue to pay that monthly service on the debt. That keeps you out of default.

John A: Your statement again reflects your monumental ignorance

You should get together with David Walker. He has a high opinion of his idiocy too.

joanna (post 1.12) - Interesting concept on a balanced budget and the debt ceiling. Unfortunately we have past obligations to meet, but come the next fiscal year we have no financial obligations other than what we have borrowed against in the past.

It could be very interesting to see how in a new fiscal year the various federal agencies will function with no $$$ to meet payrolls or to fund programs. SS should be OK for a while as that was borrowed against in the past.

Which right wing pundit is quoted below?

"let’s be frank. It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight"

--------------------------------

Paul Krugman.

John A - No sense in trying to engage JAS1....she's frighteningly ignorant.....and, quickly frankly, she has no idea what you just said. You know "current receipts", "unfunded obligations"......she can't debate you because her education is limited to what some right wing nut feeds her which she promptly regurgitates.

american: joanna (post 1.12) - Interesting concept on a balanced budget and the debt ceiling. Unfortunately we have past obligations to meet, but come the next fiscal year we have no financial obligations other than what we have borrowed against in the past.

Now you're seeing the power of a balanced budget. Certainly not paying your bondholders and going into default is a very serious issue. But the government has the means to service the debt though as our average monthly obligations to that debt are about $14 billion, again, depending on when the bonds come due. What it means though is that the countries credit card has been cut up, and now the government pays in cash. The government of course will be forced to reduce year over year spending on other things besides the service on the debt by $1.5 trillion or so. Some difficult choices will have to be made, but that's why we have all the smart people in Congress and the White House to figure out what those choices should be.

Poor laurie. Mean, vindictive, uneducated, and moronic.

Have a nice day laurie.

vwterry:A statement like this just proves how short your attention span is. this conversation and the continued blackmail by the Republicans has been going on for months.

Really?So, what is the Democrats/Obama plan vw? Because as of even today, they don't have one! The only thing Obama and Democrats have done in the last months is demagogue the Republican plan. The Dems/Obama can't talk about their plan, because they don't have one! So what exactly do you think the Democrats and Obama talk about with the GOP if they don't even have a plan of their own to discuss?

John A, you use history to make it seem like you understand the deficits but what you are quoting having nothing to do with the so called modern nation state that you say has nothing in common with a personal household or corporation. Instead of giving us political idealogue 101 from a college campus, the rest of us live in the real world. Besides the government not having a profit motive which personal households and corporations do, everything else about a government is exactly like the financial health of personal households and corps. The revenue and expense side of things is no different and your credit standing or ability to borrow additional funds is directly linked to the health of your balance sheet. The US balance sheet is the best in the world which is why our credit rating is so high and why we can continue to borrow the funds. Once it gets more out of whack that will change. Its basically a certainty that over the next generation, we will need to lower our overall aggregate standard of living in order to pay for the liabilities the current generation has created or even to keep it the same. We would have to borrow the same amount of trillions over the next 20 years as a percentage of total GDP value of our economic assets in order just to MAINTAIN our current standard of living. Thats cant happen without catastrophic results and everyone understands that. So to put our fiscal house in order, the only question is who is going to bear the brunt of this reduced standard of living--is it the elderly who in the aggregate hold 80% of our nations assets through a combination of taxation ie estate tax, means testing SS and medicare etc or is it going to be the younger generation through higher taxes, lower entitlement welfare or subsidies from the government in some form. One of those two things will happen.

Your simplistic history lesson tells us nothing. I do agree though that balancing the budget is irrelevant this issue is more the reduction of our aggregate standard of living.

John A says in reference to the balanced Budget Amendment:

a piece of pointless political posturing.

A balanced budget will NOt get through the Senate

Its good to see that John and the other "Progressives" are willing to admit that, in their view, a Balanced Budget Amendment is a waste of time because the Dems in the Senate will not vote in favor of it. Which is precisely the reason why we are in the current fiscal mess and debt crisis we now face. "Progressive" do not believe the federal government should be living within its means, they are ok with spending money they don't have a driving the country into bankruptcy. As long as they can create a large group of individuals that are dependent upon the federal government for their everyday needs, they know they will have a permanent block of voters they can look to for votes come election time. Regardless of the fact that they will they bankrupt the country by doing. Stabilizing the economy, via a balanced budget and requiring Washington to live within its means, is what creates the atmosphere necessary for private sector job growth, instead bloated and wasteful spending government jobs.

The vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment will reveal to the public which members of the Senate and Congress are truly serious about fixing our fiscal problems and stopping Washington's spending addiction. Which is precisely what guys like John are afraid of, the mask being pulled off the face of the liberal progressive who don't want to be saddled with the requirement of living with a balanced budget mandated by the Constitution.

JAS1 - A little defensive now aren't we? Perhaps my comments hit too close to home?? You need to toughen up that skin of yours dearie.

laurie: JAS1 - A little defensive now aren't we?

You? Probably yes. Me? Just being truthful.

american-2051576

Your post makes the point I've been writing about for days: The libertarian ultra-right WANTS to shut down government almost entirely.

The intention, which has been widely published and discussed for years, is to destroy regulation, privatize public operations, and funnel public money to corporations - as was been done exensively under the malodorous and criminal Bush Administration.

No $$$ for operating our public institutions. Essentially anarchy rules. Allegedy "free market" reign in America.

The U.S., circa 1840.

You people are entirely batsh$t crazy.

And that goes double for the dismissive, ignorant propagandist Kirk-2957282. If he understood history, he'd understand why the discussion of a sophisticated financing system for government related to the examples given. "The aggregate standard of living" - doublespeak for "downsizing government" - doublespeak for "privatizing government and shutting it down as far as possible." Kevin, I bet you work for that worm Grover Norquist.

Balance the budget you say? Who was the last President to do that? Well let's snip here cut there and paste here...

Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

Oh no it wasn't a Republican no it was a Democrat! Well I'll be danged and he had four straight years of surpluses too! Hmmm... How do you suppose he did that? That's right with tax revenues that exceeded expenditures and not keeping his massive defense (HA! more like offense) expenditures off budget. Wow! It takes a Democrat and some RINOs to balance a budget. Who would of thunk it? Yep not a Tea Bag among them!

laurie-

"You need to toughen up that skin of yours dearie"

You are kidding, right?

Joanna and No Jo have been posting at First Read for years and have taken everything the folks who seem to think they own this site can throw at them. Right, Clara? ("I refuse to let them spray their graffiti on OUR house!")

"...toughen up..."?

lol, laurie...

lol.

Not only do I understand history but work directly in the field you are discussing and have in my hands at the moment a McKinsey non partisan study and what the economics of the future deficit will mean to all of us and the impact of all of the various alternatives being discussed by each political party along with some other possible alternatives and what they mean. You speak from some idealogue partisan rose colored glasses and I speak from total fiscal awareness and understanding of financial behavior in the marketplace. My views are not democrat or republican they are fiscal views. I have various opinions on where the cost of our future reduced standard of living should come from but everyone can have differing opinions on that. Its basic economics, if you borrow and spend all of what you borrow above your revenue, you inflate your aggregate standard of living. To maintain that standard you have to keep spending at the same level with revenue or sell assets or continue to borrow otherwise you reduce it. All of those options will impact some group's or all of our standards of living in some mannner. I am not sure how you can dispute that?

JohnA - I am all for smaller and more responsible government. The fact that our politicians have seen fit to ignore our ever mounting debt until recently is appalling in that they seem to think that others will always be willing to extend us credit, or that they can ask others for just a "little more".

That is shear idiocy, at this point in time I really don't see what would be worse for the good ol' US of A. Default now and take our lumps now or to really seriously cut back on all federally funded programs not supported by FICA taxes and our foriegn debt obligations. Neither option is attractive or without the same degree of financial and social pain.

It appears that many wish to ignore, minimize or scoff at what will be required to move forward without a long term and often painfull course of action.

Are you joking? If Obama wasnt president the private sector would be hiring more. That's not going to happen until banks can price the risk of loaning money to idiots appropriatley. His 2.5 year anti-business rhetoric and signing that ridiculous Frank/Dodd bill insures high unemployment until we can elect a better president.

From what some of your own conservative comrads say, UAW, banks aren't lending to the "idiots" because there is no demand.

I keep asking for clarification as to which is it, and I keep getting contradictory answers.

Show me some evidence for yours.

The GOP/TP has no intention of helping this country out of the mess they are responsible for creating. It has been the agneda of the GOP/TP to sit on the side lines and watch this country go down the drain and even push it along when they could.

They talk a big game about leadership but what leadership has the GOP/TP shown in the last 2 plus years. THe only thing you can count on from the GOP/TP is their "Obstructionism", period. They campaigned on creating jobs and stimulating the economy. Where are their plans for creating jobs, where are theit plans for stimulating the econimy.

They have controlled the House long enough to have at least proposed a Jobs Bill or some Stimulus Program. They have not because they are betting against this country. They are betting the farm that the economy will tank and unemployment will increase.

Why, because they will blame that on President Obama, like they are doing now and try to us that as their ticket back into the White House.

The GOP/TP is not interested in moving this country forward, in fact they want the exact opposite for political reasons and the hell with the carnage and damage they will cause along the line.

The Party that is failing to show leadership is the GOP/TP not President Obama. He has created jobs and continues to try and create jobs but the GOP/TP stalls him at every corner. They opposed the Small Business Bill, they blocked the infrastructure Bill and about 400 other bills in the Senate. That is not the record of a Party trying to move this country forward, but it is the ideology of one that vowed to make President Obama a one term President and also vowed to no compromise.

Look at the Debt Ceiling talks. President Obama at least has everything on the table for discussion. The GOP/TP on the other hand has slapped America with an Ultimatum. They are saying either they get what they want - namely tax cuts for the 2% and corporations or they will force this country into bankruptcy. That is the leadership the GOP/TP is offering us.

You keep repeating it, Nvy, but it does not make it true- the GOP never campaigned on a stimulus bill.

Given how the first almost trillion was misspent, their own mothers would not have voted for them if they had.

Along with a $22 million cruise ship terminal in Detroit, $450 million to a Chinese firm to build wind turbines for a wind farm in Texas owned by a big Obama donor, millions to bring broadband to Montana where there were already 7 broadband providers, there was this goody

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/13/opinion/doc4cb536541507b587546861.txt

Does Obama really think he can raise,the dead? Did he think they would invest that $18 million? How about the prisoners? Were they going to spend that money out in the community?

Stimulous was a disastrous waste of borrowed money, that only created jobs in China.

Obama is a failure.

UAW, Why would I or anyone joke about such serious matters?

You are right that corporations are sitting on $2+ Trillion for political and other reasons of their own, while their mouthpieces lecture us about shared responsibilities. But your 'anti-business' spin could not be any further from the truth.

To choose one example: go look at the facts on the Small Jobs Bill (that Republicans voted against 3 times). This Administration fought for and made 17 tax cuts for small businesses thus far, cut taxes and made more loans available for entrepreneurs, eliminated the capital gains taxes for key investments in small businesses, increased the deduction to defray the costs of starting a company and freeing up credit to grow and expand, working to create an environment in which someone can raise capital and start a new business, etc. The Small Business Adminstration was headed up by Karen Mills in the first two weeks of the Obama presidency and has been a cornerstone of priority ever since.

Anti-business is when you vote 11 times against closing loopholes that would discourage companies from taking/sending jobs abroad. That is what Republican congressionals did 11 times, and it costs America $Billions of dollars as well as millions of American jobs.

Backhouse, explain to me these loopholes that discourage companies from taking/sending jobs abroad? You realize that just reduces jobs and doesnt retain jobs. Lets use a simple example, you go into your local hardware store to buy a hammer, both brands you recognize. One the back, one says made in the US and the other could be China, anywhere in Asia or South America it doesnt matter. You dont look to make that choice as 95% of us make our purchasing choices without looking. One sells for $25 dollars and the other sells for $19.99. Which one do you buy? The total cost of producing that good at 19.99 is 75% leaving a profit of $4.99 or a profit margin of 25%. The one in the US cant compete and loses market share because if it tries to sell at 19.99 it actually loses money. But the loopholes were closed and Craftsman wasnt allowed to manufacture the goods overseas. On the other hand shipping overseas, all of sudden Craftsman can sell its hammers in China, Brazil, Europe and can compete for the same sales and soon it hires all kinds of new employees here in the US to handle all those additional multinational sales. That was a simple example and its not simple but there is no such thing as closing loopholes to discourage companies from moving overseas. If there is could you name if for me?

As for the $2 trillion, corps would spend it in a second if the return on their investment created a profit so its not like they want it sitting in a bank earning 1%. If they bring it back to the US it gets taxes a second time at very uncompetitive rates so they want to reinvest it overseas which they would if they could create a demand for their products and the expense structure wasnt so high. It does them no good to sit on it. No corp wants to do that.

Kirk,

Revenue has to come from Some Where.

At this moment Republican leaders are for cutting to the bottom and letting the US default on its debts. Their plan is to use MediCare to pay for the Deficit. They have no plans to create revenues.

Privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicare of which two-thirds goes to seniors, is all they have in the way of ideas.

And I think privatizing social security and cutting medicare is a viable option that would be better than we have know. Seniors control 80% of the wealth in this country and means testing and forcing wealthy seniors to pay more for the health care they receive is something we should do.

I am also not saying revenue doesnt need to be raised but its impossible to raise revenue without unintended consequences in any debt reduction material manner. We need to revise the tax code and make it simpler progressive and all personal and corporate welfare eliminated. No more social engineering to subsidize people who have kids with deductions and child credits. If you choose to have a child you pay for it. You choose to own a home you pay for it and not get subsidized by the government with mortgage deductions and no loopholes for rich or corporations but lower rates and we raise a ton more revenue

Kirk, Was doing too many things at once earlier and crashed on the details.

As for your last note here, when you refer to people in terms of "social engineering" it makes me think of clones or objects to be observed through test tubes. Like maybe you can turn off their batteries and not feed them for a few months and it's OK. Do you have children or know anyone with children as usually they bring out heart and feeling for others.

If mortgages went underwater due to the gross greed on Wall Street which led to a Great Recession, why blame the victims and make their families pay in all the ways because they 'trusted the experts'?

If someone with minimum or low wage can and does pay taxes, why should the very rich get around it with loopholes and pay 7% or 0% taxes? Equality and equity? The real numbers on the $billions made by corporations from the beginning of this recession truly boggle the mind.

This 'ton more revenue' you speak of is not to be acquired via folks who lost their jobs or homes due to crimes on Wall Street. It should not be shifted to the wealthy by cutting Headstart or police, fire and teachers, schools, healthcare for folks in rural areas, family planning or cutting Medicare for seniors.

You might say aloud all the logic you want and even convince yourself. But we are here on this planet to help each other out. Telling you this in case you don't know. Finding meaning is a problem for many people, and I have handed you at no cost what may appear to you to be the illogical square root.

Backhouse, I have 4 kids and you obviously dont believe in self reliance and consequences for the behaviorial choices you make. When you choose to have a child, thats your choice and its not mine or the governments responsibility to pay for it. I have no problem with charity and a safety net but thats not what we are talking about. The overall government costs for a safety net are relatively low in the scheme of things its beyond that I shouldnt subsidize. Greed on Wall street had nothing to do with someone taking on a mortgage they couldnt afford. You cant let the person who borrowed the money off the hook for the choices they make. This isnt a welfare society where there are no consequences for your choices. People making low wages pay zero income tax and you know it. Very few rich pay zero tax and I have no problem with closing deductions and makig taxes progressive but that was my point before. No more mortgage deduction etc. Do you know the average rich person who makes 250 thousand with 2 kids pays 75 thousand in taxes and the average middle class person that makes 75 thousand with 2 kids pays 5,000. Thats progressive. You want to talk about the exceptions thats fine but dont act like exceptions are the norm. Lets not talk corporations because thats silly as they are not evil and they create the benefits most of us enjoy. Its not a matter of cutting off funds for the people you mention because the budget growth for those people since 2000 have exploded by double digits way beyond inflation and revenue growth. We are talking about cutting the rate of growth spent on those social services not cutting them below normal inflationary growth.

I work with the homeless and a food pantry and I do it voluntarily but I wasnt put on this planet to solve the problems that for the most part they created--not all mind you but most. Nothing was handed to me free as I worked my butt off for everything I have. Its not your job to take it away--its my decision how to spend it.

Not saying anything new by responding: Everything around us, from the apples to the toilet paper exists because hundreds of workers and trees and trucks got involved. We depend on others constantly... to build roads and bridges and things we expect to be there for us any time of day.

We may not all be educated or insightful about business and inflationary growth, but we breathe the same air.

And we all have stories. My father's father and many brothers were coal miners. When they decided he was 'too good-looking for the pit" he took up brick laying. After a terrible head injury our Mother carried the show for years. The pressure got to her eventually. Luckily her children were bright indeed, healthy and 'self-reliant'.

And would you agee that overall and unlike many others, cause and affect has been kind to you and me? We are connected absolutely and it cannot be otherwise. To be believe that any fellow human being is not worthy of our unconditional support or help is not innately evil or bad ~ just some clouds in the way of a unique and brilliant view.

With thanks.

I am sure you have a great story and I was raised the same way teacher mom and dad who started his own small business of owning a hallmark store. He worked 14 hours 7 days a week because its a cash business and every dollar means something. We were raised to help others and the more you have the more thats expected of you. However, that self reliance is destroyed when things are given and handed to you and their are no consequences for your behavior whether it be drug and alcohol or bad financial choices. We as a society should be there to make sure people dont fall so far they dont have a safety net and by a large charities do a much better job than the government. We have passed that point and our government continues to get all of us hooked on government subsidies whether it be child tax credits, corporate welfare, farming subsidies, mortgage credits etc. Social security is so ingrained even though seniors control 80 perecent of the wealth in this country. We should make social security into a means tested entitlement and reduce our payroll payments accordingly. Its ridiculous that our young subsidize payments to the wealthiest generation of this world. I am not talking of taking money out of the elderly to keep them from eating but the ones with millions in the bank.

My orginal point is you made wide generalizations painting anyone who is a fiscal conservative as some evil person and we all are not like that. Many of us and probably you and I have more in common than you think and probably would get along very well. We may differ in how things are going but broad generalizations are what creates this horrible political climate we are in

Show me a single mother or father doing OK, who is not fiscally conservative.

Consider that you may be stubbornly applying a small particular and personal 'right' perception of the world based on your own accumulated position, and pasting it no matter what over a vast impermanent diversity of human life. What we have in common as human beings is what's important and that transcends who is able and who is not. It transcends those who can deliver according to your expectations and who, even if it drives you up the wall, simply can not.

I am not sure what you mean by this commonality and what role the government plays in this diversity. Are you saying that I have some obligation to fix the problems in Greece, AIDS in Africa, starvation in India. Or closer to home, if I were to lose all my accumulated assets in a big gambling trip to Las Vegas and the creditors were foreclosing on my home, tax bills in the mail etc, someone like you is supposed to subsidize my mortgage payment? I am not trying to be flippant its just that you are talking about transcendant commonality that puts more than a moral obligation on me imposed on the government and I am truly not sure what that means

We are the same. We are not the same.

1. Diversity isn't just something or someone far away in exotic places. Diversity is right here between you and me Kirk in the differences between us.

2. How many families lost their homes due to gambling debts in Las Vegas or around poker tables? The idea that responsible parents knowingly risked losing their homes is an odd fantasy on your part. Happily, the housing scam is now well-documented. And at the time, folks were persuaded to take on excessive debts to make up for incomes and wages being stagnant and millions of jobs lost over the last decade. Remember also how you could re-negotiate your mortgage and borrow a $100K at the same time.

Over many years by cunning & deception, Americans were exploited and cheated out of their security. It's no secret here or abroad about what went down in our country. Sounds like you aren't one of them but lots of people both wealthy and not, agree that whatever federal action can be taken should be taken on behalf of those who were deceived.

Maybe i am really naive but can you explain this deception and hownit took place? What isbthis housing scam your talking about? I know the banks and specifically Fannie and Freddie at the urging ofnbarneynfrank and Dodd loosened up their underwriting criterion in order to make the banks loan to anyone with a pulse butni wasn't aware of any grand scam. Enlighten me please. I know the speculative took advantage of low mortgage standards in Phoenix, vegas and california but wasn't aware of a scam. I know plenty of people in the office whomtook advantage ofmloan modificationnrulesmeven though they had jobs and could afford their mortgage. I know people whomare squatting in their homes for two years without making payments because theyncan here in Illinois before foreclosure while having jobs. I must have missed the scam because it's not apparent here in Illinois.

Kirk,

Let's end now as I've stopped taking you seriously. Thanks for writing.

Go out on the street sometime when you get a minute. Stop the first two people and ask them about fraudulent activity and the housing bubble that has decimated our economy, left millions of houses on the market in foreclosure and all but crushed the construction and related industries causing huge job losses.

From: The Heritage Foundation, April 22, 2008, Executive Summary 2127:

"The collapse of the subprime mortgage market in late 2006 set in motion a chain reaction of economic and financial adversity that has spread to global financial markets, created depression-like condi­tions in the housing market, and pushed the U.S. economy to the brink of recession. In response, many in Congress and the executive branch have proposed new federal spending and credit pro­grams that would greatly expand the role of govern­ment in the economy but do little to alleviate the distress caused by the financial crisis that has spread rapidly to nearly all sectors of the economy.

The Financial Crisis. These problems origi­nated in the mid-1990s, when mortgage lenders relaxed the previously strict financial qualifications for obtaining a mortgage to buy a house by offering mortgage loans to credit-impaired households, albeit at higher interest rates to compensate for the greater risk. Despite the many different forms that these mortgages would ultimately assume (e.g., no down payment, interest-only, and negative amorti­zation), they were designated "subprime" because of the borrowers' checkered credit histories. Despite the risk associated with these subprime mortgages, many mortgage lenders further relaxed their under­writing standards and in the process introduced even more risk into the system, some of it motivated by fraud and misrepresentation."

www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/004/executive-summary-the-subprime-mortgage

I am fully aware of the housing bubble and the lack of underwriting criteria and government incented policies intending to put mortgages in the hands of people who couldnt afford it but explain to me this widespread scam you refer to. Because I push you, you dont want to take me seriously? You make sweeping generalizations based on partisan talking points with no real substance and I call you on it and you get mad at me. Just like every financial bubble, no different than the internet bubble, people are making very speculative risky investments just like they did with internet based companies and more recently mortgages. There certainly was a lack of oversight in both of the last two bubbles and of course yes there was some fraud and misrepresentation but those things were a minor factor in the fact that the bubble burst. The bubble burst because the reason its called subprime is because these people were very risky borrowers and should never had been able to get a mortgage in the first place but underwriting criteria disappeared. By the way the fraud and misrepresentation you refer to happened at the local level not at the top. The problems at the top were greed as Franklin Raines pulled in 200 million of compensation as the head of Fannie May or the greed at the mortgage companies paying their CEOs exorbitant salaries or when things started going bad they tried to hide the riskiness of their investments from shareholders but the discovery of this would not have had any impact on the bubble bursting. You made it sound like some cabal of people bringing down the economy on purpose for thier own good with evil intent. That just didnt happen.

"FBI : HOUSING SCAMS MORE THAN DOUBLE:
WASHINGTON — Federal mortgage fraud convictions have more than doubled in the past year, and the FBI expects a growth in foreclosure scams as the crisis over substandard, high-interest home loans escalates." (1/14/2008)

More details on how it was done @ www.usatoday.comnews/info/2008-01-13-morgage-law_Nhtm.

Backhouse, why did you cite this article? It has nothing to do with our conversation. So the FBI found 330 people and arrested 485 that have been accused of fraud adding up $11 million including targeting Haitains, a motorcycle gang etc? How does this have anything to do with the housing bubble? How does this have anything to do with rich people or the GOP? And you think I am in denial?

Article was written early on in the expository process in January 2008.

I did not mention "rich people" or "GOP" actually. You did. You are mixing me up with commentors on other post.

Kirk, Merriam-Webster's definition of 'scam': "fraudulent or deceptive act or operation":

"In September 2004, the FBI reported that there was a "growing epidemic" of mortgage fraud in the country that could eventually cause the collapse of the housing market. No one paid much attention. After all, this was right in the middle of the housing bubble, home prices were soaring, and nearly all homeowners felt wealthier because of it.

The following July, a syndicated real estate columnist named Ken Harney wrote an article asserting that there was widespread and growing fraud in mortgage applications which was "a multi-billion dollar problem." Still no reaction.

Then in September 2005, a firm named the Prieston Group which insured against mortgage fraud announced that in the first half of that year, the most prevalent type of mortgage fraud - 53% of all claims -- was something called "occupancy fraud." This fraud involved an investor who falsely claimed on the mortgage application that he/she intended to occupy the property as a primary residence.

Speculators had good reason to lie about intending to occupy a purchased property. Because owner-occupied houses had lower rates of default than investor-owned properties, lenders would give owner occupants an interest rate that could be as much as 40% lower than what they gave an investor. They would also require a smaller down payment as well as lower cash reserves. With stated income loans which did not require documentation of a borrower's income having become so widespread by 2005, the temptation of a speculator to lie on the application to obtain mortgages for one or more properties became irresistible.

The Prieston report claimed that based on its experience, as much as 10% of all mortgage applications involved fraud and that 25% of all foreclosures involved some kind of application misrepresentation. It turns out that these estimates may be much too low."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-widespread-mortgage-fraud-toppled-the-housing-bubble-2010-5#ixzz1Rpj5Z9uy

Or benifits to the American people.....

I see, UAW. So, you don't care if the patient dies before you have a chance to administer the cure.

You'd make a very bad emergency room physician.

This sort of argument reminds me of when John McCain said during the 2008 campaign that he knew how to find Osama bin Laden. Apparently, the extortion price for sharing that information was a vote. And he didn't even share it afterward, did he?

I call that sort of calculus treasonous. If McCain knew, he had a duty to say what he knew ... immediately. If Republicans know how to save the economy and lower unemployment ... then NOW is the time.

Much more likely is that they either don't have a clue what to do, or don't care, just so long as they gain power in the end. I call that sort of calculus treasonous, too.

McCain never knew or knows his a$$ from 3rd base Anna.

Ya know, I'm thinking there are about 15 million unemployed Americans who agree with McConnell.

Despite whatever David Plouffe says. Obama ought to give a good hard think about listening to him- this was the guy who tried to run the Labour Party campaign as outsiders, with a platform of ephemera.

Did not work, as they had been in power for a number of years, and had the record to prove it.

Anna Molloy:

I see he (UAW) tried this crap on FT lost and now is over here with the same sh!t again. THe GOP/TP is not for the American People. They are deliberately and with unmitigated arrogance betting against the People of this country. They are literally betting the farm on the demise of the economy so they can blame President Obama when the bottom line is that are the ones who have failed in any form of leadership at all.

They make Karl Rove proud, they make me sick to my stomach. I have a hard time trying to justify why any of the GOP/TP would call themselves an American and then work so hard to make us fail. They get happy when the news for this country is bad.

Wake up people, that should tell you something.

what i think no one is seeung or saying is that these republicans do actually believe they are helping the country. They do not believe in the kind of every working mans America with a robust middle class and safety net. they believe that the wealthy and (creator class) those that create wealth should have the power. they believe that those who aren't part of these two groups are where they are for a reason and they should deal with their own problems. because of this a situation like now is perfect because it gives them a chance to cut out the safety net and make changes we would never tolerate any other time. like what they have done in Wisc. and Mich. as two recent examples.

Hey Job1,

Let's see if you still think that if Obama cuts "the big 3" (or any combination)... you keep saying how great Obama is and from last weeks postings, I know you say it because your still burning with anger inside that Bush won and Gore lost.

scott baker, Bingo.

The whole country is watching the Republicans use this crisis as an excuse to dismantle Medicare, and other safety net programs, as well as de-funding Planned Parenthood (which provides gynecological healthcare for low income women), and even de-funding Public Broadcasting (I mean, come on, we can't have an unbiased news source competing with FOX.)

john the republicans campaigned almost solely on job creation before the mid-term elections. Name one thing they have proposed concerning job creation since they got elected, you can't, because all they have done since taking office is obstruct any piece of legislation that might have helped the economy in any way, they want the President to be perceived as a failure, if they have to screw the entire country to get it done so be it, they are traitors by definition.

john,

I agree with wBush. The GOP/TP has not done one thing in two plus years to move this couintry forward one inch. Instead they have been an anchor around the neck of our President just like they said they would.

As i have asked about a hundred times now,

Show us one thing that the GOP/TP has done in the last two years plus to move this country forward. Show us the bills they have passed in the House (since they took over) that creates any jobs in this country. Show us the bill that helps stimulate the economy or improve education. There are none now and there will be none coming for this country from the GOP/TP.

You guys campaigned on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and the Economy and have yet to show the American People any leadership in creating jobs or helping he economy.

The GOP/TP is nothing more that a bunch of Obstructionists and LIARS, betting and plotting against their own country for political gain and do not care one iota on the damage and carnage they are going to cause.

Just show us what you have done in the last 2 years to move this country forward. All I keep hearing is the same old FOX and Rove talking points.

Let’s say the CEO of the largest corp in the world aka the US Govnt decided one day to loan the largest banking industry in the world $700 billion dollars to help the economy recover and hire more people. Then the next day this CEO jumps on a his private 767 jet dubbed Air Force one and proceeds to bitch about that industry for the next 2.5 years straight. Surprisingly the economy hasn’t recovered and unemployment is higher……

VOTE FOR A NEW CEO IN 2012!

The Republican agenda has been the same in every state where they won power in 2010: bust the public unions and use the money "saved" (wrung from said workers) to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals.

It's like they didn't do as thorough of a job as they would have liked destroying the middleclass during Bush's lost decade, they are exploiting the economic news to finish their project.

The creative moonbats at Soros-funded hack media have come up with a new talking point:

"The GOP is deliberately sabotaging the economy" ...that is so laughable.

If the Republicans really wanted to tank the economy, they merely would allow another Democrat 'stimulus' bill to pass, along with more Dem taxes increases on the so-called 'rich", and other statist policies that have ruined the private sector economy.

It would be laughable except for the fact that it is very true. Show us what the GOP/TP has done to move this country forward in the last two plus years. Show us your jobs bills or the bill for stimulating the economy. Come on big mouth just show us and we will go away. Where is the Jobs Bill.

Come on - Put up or shut Up. Just show us the Jobs Bills or the Economic Stimulus you have passed to date. That is all we are asking. Where is your leadership?? You talk a big game but instead we get impotent whining and lies.

Sorry, the American people are starting to get wise to your lies and they are not buying it. They know who is dragging this country into the toilet and it is not President Obama.

A balanced budget amendment was passed by congress back in the 80's I believe, the supreme court ruled it to be unconstitutional, so Kevin forget about the bill it is a farce like most things in Congress.

An Amendment to the Constitution can not be unconstitutional. What you are talking about is the line item veto which was not a constitutional amendment, but a law. Try to keep up, I know such concepts are hard to understand, but at least get your facts straight before you render an opinion based on bogus information.

The fact is Kevin there is no way in hell a constitutional amendment to balance the budget will pass, none.

Correct bush, as long as the Dems are in control of the Senate and White House they will not vote for and veto real progress. But as soon as we get them out the Balanced Budget Amendment will pass. And if Obama was half the leader he wants everyone to believe he is, he would be getting every member of his party and the voters behind the amendment. But we all know Obama has no real leadership capabilities, his only agenda is what he wants and not what's good for the country. The charade is up and Obama is the loser.

Kevin don't fool yourself the Republicans don't want any part of a balanced budget amendment that they would have to honor either, be honest.

Any citation to "Think Progress" should come with a disclaimer:

*Think Progress is funded by Far left loony George Soros, for the sole purpose of spouting lies and moonbat propaganda. Citing this garbage comes at a high price to your credibility.

Check this out:

I'M A REPUBLICAN AND ASHAMED OF THIS GOP!

http://theobamadiary.com/2011/07/08/gop-losing-ground-with-seniors/

Bob,

So true. Have you seen anyone here try to use Fox News as a source. I have and it wasn't pretty.

Fox does 'news'?

I had no idea.

well pat, how can the gop do anything when the socialists in power can and do block everything? the only party of no is the libs. when the gop say no its because no tax hikes, no obamacare, no to government thefts of businesses, obama has killed more jobs and is the worst president in history, and look at all the dumb a sses who get on there knees for him. i hope the world ends soon because with the libs in power there wont be life with freedom anymore.

Well stated "Pat" - these people were voted into office and they told you what they were gonna do. Every Republican out there wants to abolish all social programs created by FDR (The New Deal) and pad their wealthy friends pocket books. Give them credit though, at least they have conviction. They have been trying to destroy the New Deal since it's inception and unfortunately Obama is going to help them. If I wanted a Republican in the White House, I would have voted for McCann. I like the president on a personal level, but he has been more of a moderator then leader. I know his roots are in community organizing, but I elected him to fight for the middle and lower classes, not negotiate away the gains from the New Deal. Divided government never works and we got what we asked for. Term limits for all politicians should be instituted - no more than 8 years for any elected politician! The founding fathers warned us of career politicians!

Obama needs no help to fail, he has done that quite well, by himself.

"John-2348496" - Your ranting is almost whimsical. First of all there is no republican plan for jobs, they haven't done crap but name federal buildings after dead people. No liberal is saying any of the crap you are spewing. Where was the outrage when under GWB the debt ceiling was raised 7 times? When he came into office the federal deficient was actually a surplus, Clinton had just about paid off Regan's credit card charging of the federal deficit. GWB came in and started two wars and cuts taxes on the wealthy and it was Cheney who actually said "deficits don't matter". Clinton raised taxes on the higher income brackets by less then 10% and Regan increased taxes several times on his watch. The bottom line is that you cannot raise revenue on the backs of programs that don't really impact the national debt. Oh by the way, in case you haven't known this, the congress just approved spending of just over $600B for the military this weekend, but cry about spending being out of control. I am a vet and I don't want anything cut from the grunts the ground, but you know darn well we are buying systems that don't have relevance in this day and age and we are padding the pockets of defense contractors. Dude, go with some facts versus just ranting... Term limits for all politicians! Our founding fathers warned us of the "career politician"...

Apologies, for this glitch, was responding to KIRK on another post and it must have flipped.