Economist: blame for deficit negotiation impasse directly at the feet of Republicans

Quote:

---

America's debt
Shame on them
The Republicans are playing a cynical political game with hugely high economic stakes


IN THREE weeks, if there is no political deal, the American government will go into default. Not, one must pray, on its sovereign debt. But the country will have to stop paying someone: perhaps pensioners, or government suppliers, or soldiers. That would be damaging enough at a time of economic fragility. And the longer such a default went on, the greater the risk of provoking a genuine bond crisis would become.

There is no good economic reason why this should be happening. America’s net indebtedness is a perfectly affordable 65% of GDP, and throughout the past three years of recession and tepid recovery investors have been more than happy to go on lending to the federal government. The current problems, rather, are political. Under America’s elaborate separation of powers, Congress must authorise any extension of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $14.3 trillion. Back in May the government bumped up against that limit, but various accounting dodges have been used to keep funds flowing. It is now reckoned that these wheezes will be exhausted by August 2nd.

The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink.
Related topics

Now, however, the Republicans are pushing things too far. Talks with the administration ground to a halt last month, despite an offer from the Democrats to cut at least $2 trillion and possibly much more out of the budget over the next ten years. Assuming that the recovery continues, that would be enough to get the deficit back to a prudent level. As The Economist went to press, Mr Obama seemed set to restart the talks.

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note.

---

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600

Liberal rag

I'm inclined to agree. If a deal doesn't get done because the republicans refuse to budge from their "100% cuts" position, it is on them. The question though is whether republicans have been touting that position because that's really all they'll agree to? Or are they thinking that they can get something better than 83%-17% by getting Obama to blink?

One important point is wrong. At the end of FY 2010, the debt was 93.2% of GDP. It is expected to be 102.6% when FY 2011 of tabulated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'm inclined to agree. If a deal doesn't get done because the republicans refuse to budge from their "100% cuts" position, it is on them. The question though is whether republicans have been touting that position because that's really all they'll agree to? Or are they thinking that they can get something better than 83%-17% by getting Obama to blink?

---

I say just print the money to cover the expenditures. Devalue the dollar against all foreign currencies. This will make imports more expensive and become part of the equation to bring manufacturing here again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'm inclined to agree. If a deal doesn't get done because the republicans refuse to budge from their "100% cuts" position, it is on them. The question though is whether republicans have been touting that position because that's really all they'll agree to? Or are they thinking that they can get something better than 83%-17% by getting Obama to blink?

---

Based on their tone today, it sounds like the Republicans are finally moving on closing tax loopholes. We'll see, but I'm feel pretty confident a deal will be made after what I heard today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

One important point is wrong. At the end of FY 2010, the debt was 93.2% of GDP. It is expected to be 102.6% when FY 2011 of tabulated.

---

Sorry man, you're going to have to provide a link. I just really haven't seen any good information out of you. Note the article referenced net debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Based on their tone today, it sounds like the Republicans are finally moving on closing tax loopholes. We'll see, but I'm feel pretty confident a deal will be made after what I heard today.

---

All along I've been expecting a bunch of pandering with a deal "miraculously" getting reached at the last minute. Looks like that's what we're going to get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I say just print the money to cover the expenditures. Devalue the dollar against all foreign currencies. This will make imports more expensive and become part of the equation to bring manufacturing here again.

---

Can't do that without going through some hyperinflation and basically destroying the current standard of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

All along I've been expecting a bunch of pandering with a deal "miraculously" getting reached at the last minute. Looks like that's what we're going to get.

---

You know it. With a couple of bravado-laden political speak interspersed here and there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sorry man, you're going to have to provide a link. I just really haven't seen any good information out of you. Note the article referenced net debt.

---

You're right but that only means it's not counting the debt owed to government retirement plans, Social Security, and the likes. The gross debt is what's important. Using the smaller number to make it seem unimportant may as well be a lie.

link:

Whitehouse/OMB: Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

One important point is wrong. At the end of FY 2010, the debt was 93.2% of GDP. It is expected to be 102.6% when FY 2011 of tabulated.

---

Who to believe? hmmm Economist blogger, or you... hmmmmm

Link?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Who to believe? hmmm Economist blogger, or you... hmmmmm

Link?

---

The article may be close in pointing out 65% net of GDP. The OMB numbers for the public debt are 62.2% for 2010 and estimate 72% for 2011. 65% is between these numbers, however, with the lower unemployment than expected, I'll predict about 70% now and about 75% and the end of the fiscal years.

Sure like to know why they are so generous for 2013+. The last few years trend is >10% increase average. 40.3% for 2008, 53.5% for 2009. The average increase for the last three tabulated years is 10.95%. May as well call it 11 and predict 73% for 2011, 84% for 2012, 95% for 2013, etc.

So you pulled the number out of thin air?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You're right but that only means it's not counting the debt owed to government retirement plans, Social Security, and the likes. The gross debt is what's important. Using the smaller number to make it seem unimportant may as well be a lie.

link:

Whitehouse/OMB: Table 7.1—Federal Debt at the End of Year: 1940–2016

---

So... the debt that the government owes itself is equally important as debt owed to entities outside the government?

Could the government, if it decided to, more easily negotiate the terms of the debt it owes itself than the terms of debt it owes to someone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So... the debt that the government owes itself is equally important as debt owed to entities outside the government?

Could the government, if it decided to, more easily negotiate the terms of the debt it owes itself than the terms of debt it owes to someone else?

---

Yes, this debt is equally or more important. Most of it is pension funds and Social security excesses. An investor assumes even a slight risk buying bonds and notes. There should be even less risk in SS and pensions. We are now at a point that the SS is paying out more than it's taking in because of this stupid reduction to 4.2%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The article may be close in pointing out 65% net of GDP. The OMB numbers for the public debt are 62.2% for 2010 and estimate 72% for 2011. 65% is between these numbers, however, with the lower unemployment than expected, I'll predict about 70% now and about 75% and the end of the fiscal years.

Sure like to know why they are so generous for 2013+. The last few years trend is >10% increase average. 40.3% for 2008, 53.5% for 2009. The average increase for the last three tabulated years is 10.95%. May as well call it 11 and predict 73% for 2011, 84% for 2012, 95% for 2013, etc.

---

So you think economic performance of the period 2007-2009 will be the same as the period 2011-2014?

Given that we will be fully divested of Iraq, drawing down Afghanistan, and no rampant fiscal/economic crisis seems in the offing in the US, that seems to be something of a leap.

Given how much you like to criticize straight-line projections when climate scientists do it, I would think you would be a bit more hesitant to do so yourself. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

So you think economic performance of the period 2007-2009 will be the same as the period 2011-2014?

Given that we will be fully divested of Iraq, drawing down Afghanistan, and no rampant fiscal/economic crisis seems in the offing in the US, that seems to be something of a leap.

Given how much you like to criticize straight-line projections when climate scientists do it, I would think you would be a bit more hesitant to do so yourself. :p:

---

LOL...

I have heard various revised numbers of Obamacare costs. I may easily be low balling the numbers.

"Obamacare costs."

Ryancare will increase the deficit and "death panel" 10s of 1000s to poverty, disease, and death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Or are they thinking that they can get something better than 83%-17% by getting Obama to blink?

---

Obama folds faster than patio furniture. It looks like a good bet to me.

Quote:

---

So you think economic performance of the period 2007-2009 will be the same as the period 2011-2014?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

LOL...

I have heard various revised numbers of Obamacare costs. I may easily be low balling the numbers.

---

A solid prediction.

What will your excuse be if it doesn't pan out?

You might want to invest in some tap shoes now, 'cause there is a good chance you are going to need them in 2015.

Quote:

---

Obama folds faster than patio furniture.

---

Indeed, with congressional Republicans that appears to be his negotiating style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obamacare costs."

Ryancare will increase the deficit and "death panel" 10s of 1000s to poverty, disease, and death.

---

Believe as you wish. At least it is a "grandfathered" plan. the democrats want to strip things right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

A solid prediction.

What will your excuse be if it doesn't pan out?

---

Time will, tell, and yes... I could be wrong. However, with the track record of CBO projections, I think I'm on pretty solid ground.

Seriously? These motherfuckers aren't going to negotiate at all?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/...html?hpt=hp_t1

From what I read, the WH offered $4 trillion over the next decade in spending cuts + some tax increases, but Boehner rather take a $2 trillion (over a decade) spending cut deal with no tax increases that was offered by Biden a while back.

Which to me signals that the GOP is more concerned about the popular perception of the measures than actually finding a solution to balancing the budget, a necessary step before you can move on to an actual surplus to pay off debt. Not unexpected, tbh, with an electoral season looming.

Boehner backing down off $4 trillion figure for debt reduction

An effort to craft a broad deal of up to $4 trillion in deficit-reduction appeared out of reach on Saturday as Republican leader John Boehner cited differences with the White House on taxes and proposed pursuing a more modest package.

"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes," Boehner, the speaker of the House of Representatives and the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement.

"I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure."

========

Hey, Boner, where are the jobs?

The Greatest Fucking Empire In The History Of The Universe feeds itself:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...une%20SNAP.png

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...une%20SNAP.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

From what I read, the WH offered $4 trillion over the next decade in spending cuts + some tax increases, but Boehner rather take a $2 trillion (over a decade) spending cut deal with no tax increases that was offered by Biden a while back.

Which to me signals that the GOP is more concerned about the popular perception of the measures than actually finding a solution to balancing the budget, a necessary step before you can move on to an actual surplus to pay off debt. Not unexpected, tbh, with an electoral season looming.

---

You have to remember a difference in thinking. Anything less than a 10% increase annual, the democrats claim is a cut. I'm sure that's part of the $4t they are referring to.

US budget talks stall over tax dispute

Republicans in Congress on Saturday pulled out of talks over an ambitious plan to cut US deficits by $4,000bn over 10 years because of the party’s opposition to new tax rises sought by Democrats.

The development means that congressional leaders, who are due to meet President Barack Obama on Sunday, will seek to strike a smaller $2,000bn deal to shrink US debt and increase America’s borrowing limit, thereby avoiding a possible default.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f72db...#axzz1RiSAXG99

==========

The Repug thought leader chimes in on wanting, encouraging the financial apocalypse:

Limbaugh Ushers Listeners Into Fantasyland On Debt-Ceiling Risks

Rush Limbaugh has falsely suggested that there would be no adverse consequences for failing to raise the federal government's debt ceiling, claiming that because the government takes in enough revenue to pay interest on the debt, there is no danger of default. But experts say that if the government failed to pay many of its other bills, it would create economic chaos and could result in rising interest rates.

Limbaugh: "We Do Not Need To Raise The Debt Ceiling. There Is No Crisis."

LIMBAUGH: TheHill.com has an interesting story today that sort of sets the stage for what's to happen. Headline: "Report: Treasury must cut spending 44 percent in default." "New analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has been shared extensively with members of Congress, estimates that the Treasury Department would not be able to pay all its bills and would need to implement an immediate 44 percent cut in federal spending in the event the debt ceiling is exceeded."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107080035

=======

Media Matter better be careful, Limbaugh will sue to lose MM's non-profit status for attacking the official Repug thought dictator.

btw, military "spending limit" gets double-digit increase.

More guns, much less butter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You have to remember a difference in thinking. Anything less than a 10% increase annual, the democrats claim is a cut. I'm sure that's part of the $4t they are referring to.

---

I don't think the criteria is any different on the $2.5T offer he's seemingly willing to accept...

From the demented fringe of the Repug fringe:

Sen. DeMint: Geithner ‘playing Chicken Little’ on the debt ceiling

Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said Sunday that there was no risk of "major economic consequences" if the debt limit was not raised by Aug. 2.

"I think the president has been gaming Republicans," DeMint told Fox News' Bret Baier. "He has been talking about this for six months. The only proposal he sent us is his budget to raise the debt $10 trillion. So it's hard to take him seriously here."

"Thousands of Americans and many Republicans in Congress are uniting around the idea that we will give the president his increase in the debt limit in return for some reasonable cuts in spending this year, some caps on spending over the next ten years, his agreement to send balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to the states for them to ratify," he added.

"Do you believe, Senator, that the country risks default or major economic consequences if the debt ceiling is not raised on August 2nd -- by August 2nd?" Baier asked.

"No, I don't," DeMint insisted. "I think [Treasury] Secretary Geithner has been irresponsible. He's playing Chicken Little here."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29

========

Anybody hear any similar "defaulting is no problem, and defaultnig is desirable" from the Dems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I don't think the criteria is any different on the $2.5T offer he's seemingly willing to accept...

---

I want what I hear the republicans say. In essence, no compromise. No increased taxes, and no increase in the debt limit.

It's time government lives within the revenues it receives.

Outside of tangible assets, how many people can be in debt for more than they make in several years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I want what I hear the republicans say. In essence, no compromise. No increased taxes, and no increase in the debt limit.

---

That's not what Boehner is doing. He will compromise and raise the limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's not what Boehner is doing. He will compromise and raise the limit.

---

probably, but I can dream, can't I?

Repugs reflexively raised the debt limit 7 times in dubya's reign of error, while dubya more than doubled the deficit, which is irrefutable proof that the Repugs' "deficit panic" is a lying pretext for destroying government, which takes priority for the Repugs, along with pandering the Christian Taleban, over stopping/reversing the lower 95% of Human-Americans declining in financial comfort/security and standard of living.

Does anybody know where the $2.5T - $4T cut is supposed to fall? It sure won't fall on the top 5%, and will certainly fall on the bottom 30%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Repugs reflexively raised the debt limit 7 times in dubya's reign of error, while dubya more than doubled the deficit, which is irrefutable proof that the Repugs' "deficit panic" is a lying pretext for destroying government, which takes priority for the Repugs, along with pandering the Christian Taleban, over stopping/reversing the lower 95% of Human-Americans declining in financial comfort/security and standard of living.

Does anybody know where the $2.5T - $4T cut is supposed to fall? It sure won't fall on the top 5%, and will certainly fall on the bottom 30%.

---

The increases in debt limit while Bush was president only added about a 10% value vs. GDP over his 8 years. Not bad for recession and war time. Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already.

When does it stop?

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

This is when I wish they wouldn't raise the limit:

New IMF Head Says US Must Raise Debt Limit, or Face 'Nasty Consequences'

"The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees 'real nasty consequences' for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit. Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said. The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

---

What law did bush pass that caused the Banker's depression??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

CARL QUINTANILLA (CNBC): Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up that your chances of winning office also go up?

MICHELE BACHMANN: Well, that could be. Again, I hope so.

http://www.alternet.org/module/print...ndviews/631124

===

In line with Repugs 2010 strategy of prolonging/deepening the jobs pain and blame it on Barry, which is still their strategy for 2012.

After winning the House, what have the Repugs done about jobs? not a fucking thing. It's all about union busting, deficits (not jobs), abortion, and opposing EVERYTHING without compromise.

---

Nothing specific, just very lax enforcement by SEC and everywhere (cocaine and whores at MMS, fracking exempted from Clean Water Act, etc, etc.

dubya did block 19 states from stopping predatory sub-prime lending, including Spitzer whom he took down later for being Sheriff of Wall St and taking down Greenberg/AIG.

dubya's Treasury could stepped in to reduce the housing/credit bubble, but they "trust" the greedy "free market" to fuck up people without govt intervention.

The ground work of financial deregulation and the Banksters' Great Depression got started with St Ronnie The Diseased and continued right up Clinton signing the Repug bill to kill Glass-Steagall and prevent the govt from regulating financial derivatives.

dubya 8 years were overwhelming responsible for the huge deficit, for the reasons I've repeated here many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The increases in debt limit while Bush was president only added about a 10% value vs. GDP over his 8 years. Not bad for recession and war time. Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already.

When does it stop?

---

This leaves out the important context of the economic growth caused by the housing bubble.

You can borrow a LOT and still have it be small relative to the economy if the economy is being pushed along by such a bubble.

When you get an economic slow down with high unemployment, you get the double whammy of greater outlays from social safety programs coupled with a smaller economy and fewer people paying into the system.

It is quite possible to be very fiscally responsible in such a case, and still find yourself with a ballooning deficit.

Since you place great emphasis on the proper context, I'm sure you were going to point that out, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

What law did bush pass that caused the Banker's depression??

---

?? Reading fail?

BD didn't actually say that Bush passed such a law, you do know that right?


As far as his administration's culpability, one can readily make the case that their laissez-faire attitude toward banking regulation, and letting the market "innovate" without any transparency, oversight, or consideration of systemic risk, led to poorly designed financial assets with deep hidden flaws that financial institutions bought into.

Quote:

---

J.P. Morgan recently surveyed its clients and asked how much rates would rise if there was a delay in payments, even a very brief one. Domestic investors thought they would go up by 0.37 percentage points, but foreign buyers — who own close to half the publicly held debt — predicted an increase of more than half a percentage point. Any increase in this range would raise Treasury’s borrowing costs by tens of billions of dollars per year.







Some may think that a rise in rates would be temporary. But there was a case back in 1979 when a combination of a failure to increase the debt limit in time and a breakdown of Treasury’s machines for printing checks caused a two-week default. A 1989 academic study found that it raised interest rates by six-tenths of a percentage point for years afterward.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...H_story_1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama however exceeded 20% in 3 years already."

dubya didn't inherit or have occur anything equivalent to the Banksters' Great Depression that Barry inherited. Barry has nothing to do with causing the deficit.

The deficit is all due to Repugs bogus/botched wars, Repug tax cuts for the rich ($1T just for the estate tax cut for super rich) and corps, Repug Medicare Advantage subsidy of for-profit insurers, Repug Part D prescription drug subsidy to BigPharma, and the cratering of tax revenues at all levels with the cratering of the economy. Apart from all those, the budget would be pretty much in balance. Barry's first budget was smaller than dubya's last budget. etc, etc.

Keep up your VRWC shilliing and lying, and I'll keep bitch slappin with the truth.

---

Like I said earlier. It's Bush's fault. Just ask any liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

This is when I wish they wouldn't raise the limit:

New IMF Head Says US Must Raise Debt Limit, or Face 'Nasty Consequences'

"The International Monetary Fund's new chief foresees 'real nasty consequences' for the U.S. and global economies if the U.S. fails to raise its borrowing limit. Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the lending institution, said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it would cause interest rates to rise and stock markets to fall. That would threaten an important IMF goal, which is preserving stability in the world economy, she said. The U.S. borrowing limit is $14.3 trillion. Obama administration officials say the U.S. would begin to default without an agreement by Aug. 2."

---

When will everyone wake up and smell the coffee. Stop letting these partisan pundits sway you.

It's going to hurt no matter what we do! Therefor, we need to focus on what hurts less in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

This leaves out the important context of the economic growth caused by the housing bubble.

You can borrow a LOT and still have it be small relative to the economy if the economy is being pushed along by such a bubble.

When you get an economic slow down with high unemployment, you get the double whammy of greater outlays from social safety programs coupled with a smaller economy and fewer people paying into the system.

It is quite possible to be very fiscally responsible in such a case, and still find yourself with a ballooning deficit.

Since you place great emphasis on the proper context, I'm sure you were going to point that out, right?

---

Yes, things are complicated. I also left out the tech bubble Clinton enjoyed that popped just as he left office.

Quote:

---

Kentucky U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that Republican lawmakers are considering allowing President Obama to unilaterally increase the nation’s debt ceiling, a move that would represent one of the largest transitions of power in modern history.



Under a proposal put forth by Mr. McConnell, Mr. Obama could request increases of upwards of $2.5 trillion in the government borrowing authority in three separate installments over the next year, while simultaneously proposing spending cuts of greater size.

---

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1RxR9jE00

"tech bubble Clinton enjoyed"

Clinton'es 8 years was the longest economic expansion since WWII, and the job creation in that period was fantastic.

Compare that with dubya's 8 years, esp the absent job creation and reduction in real household income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articl...#ixzz1RxR9jE00

---

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility. They're scrambling to make this not look like their fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility. They're scrambling to make this not look like their fault.

---

Notice how he says between the lines that raising the limit is the responsible thing to do, but they don't want the responsibility. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

"raising the limit is the responsible thing to do"

today's Repug deficit hawks were dubya's deficit doves, raising the debt limit 7 times without panic, while running the up national debt like it was St Ronnie all over again.

There is no deficit panic. The Repugs don't give a shit about future generations, the socioptaths don't give shit about the current generation.

The deficit results from a VRWC/Repug well-known policy decisions going back to the 1970s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility.

---

The Tea Party will not be easily reconciled to the power this measure would punt to the President. If it does get punted though, Obama will own the debt ceiling 100% and the Republicans can bury the president in resolutions of condemnation.

It sounds like a perfectly terrible idea and an institutional wuss-out to boot, but maybe it's just a ghost story McConnell is telling to frighten his own caucus into making a deal. Quien sabe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sounds like an attempt by the Republicans to wash their hands of any responsibility. They're scrambling to make this not look like their fault.

---

Make what look like their fault? We haven't defaulted yet and you can be sure the business community has informed the GOP exactly how much time they have to "play tuff" before raising the cap.

Thats odd anyway you slice it but perhaps the motivation is the likelyhood that the debt ceiling is actually unconstitutional so the GOP may see this as the best way to spin it politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

the GOP may see this as the best way to spin it politically.

---

Crazy, but that don't surprise me much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Make what look like their fault?

---

Sorry, that could have been stated more clearly, but I was referring to the repubs complete unwillingness to negotiate. I don't think they're hard-line on 'tax-hikes' is in line with what the american people want as Boehner/Cantor/McConnell keep feeding us and they're looking increasingly intractable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Make what look like their fault? We haven't defaulted yet and you can be sure the business community has informed the GOP exactly how much time they have to "play tuff" before raising the cap.

---

They have informed them somewhat formally, but the real way that information will be transmitted is through financial market data.

So far, nary a blip, but I think that if things do start to shift, the results will be pretty dramatic, as the "fear" force kicks in.

At that point, it will be too late to put the cat back in the bag, and no one knows exactly where that tipping point is, because it isn't a conscious consensus.

Most believe that this is very empty posturing, and everything will be honky dory, but that can turn on a dime.

I think it is highly irresponsible to play this game, even if no consequences have materialized so far. It is maddening to see the kind of risks being taken for the sake of political gain to make tea party radicals happy. :bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

Sorry, that could have been stated more clearly, but I was referring to the repubs complete unwillingness to negotiate..

---

It's to their advantage to look that way until the time comes to fold their hand, hold their noses and raise the cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I think it is highly irresponsible to play this game, even if no consequences have materialized so far.

---

It is highly irresponsible not to get reelected. How can you be a force for the good if you don't win the election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I think it is highly irresponsible to play this game, even if no consequences have materialized so far.

---

Apparently the GOP fears the tea party more than default. Such is politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Economist

A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

---

Quote:

---

The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.

---

They aren't holding back here.

http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2...20colorKOS.png

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/us...l.html?_r=1&hp

These fuckin' republicans are just stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYT article, July 22, 2011

WASHINGTON — An angry and frustrated President Obama accused Republican leaders on Friday night of walking away from “an extraordinarily fair deal” to raise the nation’s debt limit. In a hastily called news conference at the White house, a grim-faced Mr. Obama demanded that congressional leaders appear at the White House on Saturday.

“I want them here at 11 a.m. tomorrow,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “They are going to have to explain to me how it is that we are going to avoid default.”

The president spoke moments after House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Republican from Ohio, released a letter that he had sent to House colleagues, saying he was breaking off the budget negotiations because of differences over revenues and would instead try to strike an agreement with Senate leaders to raise the debt limit. The abrupt end of the negotiations leaves slightly more than a week for lawmakers to come to some resolution over increasing the debt limit before sending the government into a potential default.

---

:bang

I became a firm Democrat after the 2003-2006 Republican fuck-up in Iraq, and all the asshats trying desperately to defend the incompant mother fuckers in the Bush administration whose negligence was killing our troops, but I swear if the Republicans fuck this up too...

The GOP is looking back to the budget deal that Bush I passed back in 1991. It included raised taxes and it obviously blew up in his face. The read my lips nonsense if any of you recall.

I will say it again. The GOP is great at campaigning. They are at it all the time. They suck ass at policy making.

The prospects are looking better going forward. Party identification of people coming out of college is becoming less and less. Maybe one day soon we will start to see ballots without party identification on the candidates.

How many times you think WC has hit the lever over the republican column on election day? Who needs to think when they do it for you?

"They suck ass at policy making."

Government Is The Problem

They don't give a shit about governing, or The American People. The better they mis-govern by transferring taxpayer $Ts to the corps and capitalists, they better they like it.

Norquist-sucking Repugs walk out of Saturday's WH talks.

This week, Repugs voted to keep ALL of the subsidies and tax expenditures for BigCarbon.

"Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments"

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ment-defaults/

I figured the debt thing would be over by now. Good for the ball baggers to keep everyone on their toes. We need a third, forth party. The dems need to come up with a alternative to them. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I figured the debt thing would be over by now. Good for the ball baggers to keep everyone on their toes. We need a third, forth party. The dems need to come up with a alternative to them. .

---

The problem is that the donors that pay for those campaigns are all the same, and want all the same 'benefits'. A third or fourth party won't change that dynamic. It would be a different label to differentiate themselves in marketing speak, but same content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments"

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ment-defaults/

---

They don't have the votes to keep us from defaulting, and now he thinks they have the votes to impeach which is an even higher threshold? That's pretty much the level of thinking you get from republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"They suck ass at policy making."

Government Is The Problem

They don't give a shit about governing, or The American People. The better they mis-govern by transferring taxpayer $Ts to the corps and capitalists, they better they like it.

---

taking me paying social security taxes and not be able to pay it to me is wrong
let me have that money and let me do what I WANt with it
if a lose it fine I will not ask the gov to help me out. I would atleast have a chance of having it. I have no chance NOW

"I will not ask the gov to help me out."

but taxpayers are already committed to accept you at taxpayer-funded medical facilities if you can't pay.

If You’re Out after Three Strikes, What Happens after Three Lies?

First, the Speaker declared that government spending was the reason for joblessness. Until this year no one believed that government spending decreases jobs. There has never been any public debate on this point because it flies in the face of common sense. Does anyone out there think government spending — on a net basis, if you like — reduces employment?

Second, Boehner described Republican conditions for an increase in the debt limit in terms of what Americans demanded — namely reduced spending and reforms. Several White House proposals have now offered deeper cuts than the Republicans dared propose, however. In his convoluted trope, Speaker Boehner thus managed to hide the fact that the key condition Republicans have imposed is no tax increases and, astonishingly, no reduction in tax loopholes. In other words, the Republican leader hid from view a key demand leading to an impasse that could cost American families thousands of dollars — and one, namely no reduction in tax loopholes, for which there is no public support.

Third, the Speaker declared that the vote for the House Republicans’ Cut, Cap and Balance bill was bipartisan — but hid the detail that only 5 of 234 votes for the bill were Democratic ones.

This appears to be a level of public duplicity on a par with what got the U.S. into the Iraq War.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...+capitalism%29

After Boehner Releases Plan That Doesn’t Cut Entitlements, He Rejects Reid Plan For Not Cutting Entitlements

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) this afternoon rejected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) plan for raising the debt ceiling, saying he can’t support any plan that doesn’t cut entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

But Boehner’s office told staff members of his own caucus that his plan wouldn’t touch Social Security, Medicare, or the Affordable Care Act.

John Boehner’s proposal” that make this very clear:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...erPlanFail.jpg

==========

Repugs are as fucking nuts as they are dishonest and extremist.

GOP Leaders Voted For Three Of The Biggest Debt Drivers, Costing $3.4 Trillion

Boehner and Cantor, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) have all voted for some of the biggest contributors to the debt — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan — which helped to double the debt over the past decade:

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. [...]

“There’s plenty of blame to go around,” for the debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. “If there had been no Barack Obama, we would still be bumping up against the debt limit.’”

The analysis shows the wars have cost $1.3 trillion since 9/11, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.7 trillion in lost revenue over a decade, and Medicare Part D costs $369 billion over a decade. The recession has also been a major contributor to the debt.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...policies-debt/

========

The Big Picture is very clear: the sociopathic, anti-American Repugs voted reliably to run up the debt while cutting taxes for wealthy and corps (going back 30+ years) and now they intend to use THEIR debt to defund/kill regulation and make the poor, sick, disabled, old, middle class, and environment pay.

well this country's ppl deserve all that is coming to them. They are the ones who elected these clowns.

Unfortunately the ppl have fallen asleep at the wheel. I feel for the children.

I read today where the craziness of the Repug obstructionism represents their overwhelming desire to beat Barry in 2012.

No matter how much pain they cause all around (except to their benefactors), to poor, old, sick, environment, economy, about none of which do the Repugs give a shit, the Repugs are looking for the deal that maximizes their damage to Barry, they deal they can and will lie ruthlessly about until Nov 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

I read today where the craziness of the Repug obstructionism represents their overwhelming desire to beat Barry in 2012.

No matter how much pain they cause all around (except to their benefactors), to poor, old, sick, environment, economy, about none of which do the Repugs give a shit, the Repugs are looking for the deal that maximizes their damage to Barry, they deal they can and will lie ruthlessly about until Nov 2012.

---

Well, of course lol. That should have been expected. I've said since Day 1 the Republicans aren't going to let some semi-young black guy come in office and attempt to fix the problems created by a bunch of old white guys :lol They would rather see the country go to hell than to have that happen. They're going to do whatever they can to butcher his presidency and make everything difficult. That's all this debt ceiling crap is really, just another unnecessary obstacle to screw with the economy in preparation for 2012. The economy is the Republican's ace at the moment. The longer it stays stagnant the better for them to regain power. They don't give two shits about the deficit. Hell, a lot of these guys didn't bat an eyelash when they went on their 8 year spending spree and suddenly they're up in arms now? Yeah right. It's all about power.

Speaker Boehner's Disgrace

Seldom have we witnessed a more dishonest speech [4] in prime time than that delivered by House Speaker John Boehner last night on the debt ceiling crisis. "The sad truth," he declared, "is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen."

The sad truth is that statement is a bald lie, applied to a president who, far from wanting a "blank check," has endorsed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan for an unconscionable $2.7 trillion in over ten years from discretionary spending as ransom to Republican threats [5] to blow up the economy by not raising the debt ceiling.

In a speech cobbling together stale conservative talking points, Boehner claimed to be "Speaker of the whole House," while talking for and to its lunatic right-wing fringe. In doing so, Boehner introduced Americans into the funhouse hall of distorted mirrors that is the current conservative delusion.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/4499

http://www.phisick.com/images/ent/et...d-dome-106.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Speaker Boehner's Disgrace

Seldom have we witnessed a more dishonest speech [4] in prime time than that delivered by House Speaker John Boehner last night on the debt ceiling crisis. "The sad truth," he declared, "is that the president wanted a blank check six months ago, and he wants a blank check today. That is just not going to happen."

The sad truth is that statement is a bald lie, applied to a president who, far from wanting a "blank check," has endorsed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's plan for an unconscionable $2.7 trillion in over ten years from discretionary spending as ransom to Republican threats [5] to blow up the economy by not raising the debt ceiling.

In a speech cobbling together stale conservative talking points, Boehner claimed to be "Speaker of the whole House," while talking for and to its lunatic right-wing fringe. In doing so, Boehner introduced Americans into the funhouse hall of distorted mirrors that is the current conservative delusion.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/4499

---

Funny how two different people can see a speech in two totally different ways. I thought Boehner handed Obama his ass last night and Obama was the one distorting the truth. Reids 2.7 million is a joke considering over half that is "savings" we were going to have anyway as we wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

well this country's ppl deserve all that is coming to them. They are the ones who elected these clowns.

Unfortunately the ppl have fallen asleep at the wheel. I feel for the children.

---

I might take mine to Denmark/Norway. Keep saying I will do this, but may pull the trigger at some point. Canada is another option. Eh.

Two less workers supporting WC/Darrin in their old age. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Funny how two different people can see a speech in two totally different ways. I thought Boehner handed Obama his ass last night and Obama was the one distorting the truth. Reids 2.7 million is a joke considering over half that is "savings" we were going to have anyway as we wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

Boners response was pablum for the converted.

Both men are trying to spin this as being the other's fault, but Obama has been far more willing to negotiate in good faith and comprimise, a fact noted by most outside observers. Like, say, the OP....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

GOP Leaders Voted For Three Of The Biggest Debt Drivers, Costing $3.4 Trillion

Boehner and Cantor, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) have all voted for some of the biggest contributors to the debt — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan — which helped to double the debt over the past decade:

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. [...]

“There’s plenty of blame to go around,” for the debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. “If there had been no Barack Obama, we would still be bumping up against the debt limit.’”

The analysis shows the wars have cost $1.3 trillion since 9/11, the Bush tax cuts cost $1.7 trillion in lost revenue over a decade, and Medicare Part D costs $369 billion over a decade. The recession has also been a major contributor to the debt.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...policies-debt/

========

The Big Picture is very clear: the sociopathic, anti-American Repugs voted reliably to run up the debt while cutting taxes for wealthy and corps (going back 30+ years) and now they intend to use THEIR debt to defund/kill regulation and make the poor, sick, disabled, old, middle class, and environment pay.

---

The two wars were backed by both parties, and see to be wrapping up in the next few years. When will Obamacare stop costing us money once we see the real cost of it?

There is not consensus that the Bush Tax cuts lost revenue. I am not alone in believing the revenue would have been less without the tax cuts. However, the 15% bracket should have been left alone in my opinion. The lower income people didn't pay much at 15%, why make a 10% bracket, except to appease the liberals.

As for the Prescription Drug Program. I'm OK with providing our seniors with better care.

We need welfare reform. It's those who turned their safety nets into hammocks that need less assistance. make life harder for them by requiring drug testing and send them out to employers who have a hard time finding legal employees. If they don't try to work, they get cut off.

The future is not pretty. We are overextended already with a debt that we have no means to pay down now. When the full force of Obamacare kicks in... watch out!!

"two wars were backed by both parties"

The Repugs pushed hard for it, LIED about it, the dickless Dems went along.

"There is not consensus that the Bush Tax cuts lost revenue"

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves, nor do they create jobs. That they do is one of the blatant, persistant VRWC lies.

"Prescription Drug Program. I'm OK with providing our seniors with better care"

... was gift to BigPharma. There's much proof that drugs do more more harm, or do nothing, than good. Prevention is a much better solution.

"It's those who turned their safety nets into hammocks "

yet again, parroting St Ronnie Welfare Queen lie.

"we have no means to pay down now"

Restore taxes to 1960s level, and the policy-driven debt disappears in a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

GOP Leaders Voted For Three Of The Biggest Debt Drivers, Costing $3.4 Trillion

Boehner and Cantor, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) have all voted for some of the biggest contributors to the debt — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, and President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan — which helped to double the debt over the past decade:

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. [...]

---

Great! Let's get out of Iraq & Afghanistan, let the Bush tax cuts expire on everybody and completely eliminate the medicare prescription drug plan.

Who's with me? Democrats? Republicans? Bueller?

Rah rah rah!
Rah rah rah!
Rah rah rah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Boners response was pablum for the converted.

Both men are trying to spin this as being the other's fault, but Obama has been far more willing to negotiate in good faith and comprimise, a fact noted by most outside observers. Like, say, the OP....

---

Like Obama's was real earth shattering new stuff??? :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Like Obama's was real earth shattering new stuff??? :lmao

---

Didn't say it was.

I said he was far more willing to put the sacred cows on the negotiating table.

The fanatic caucus in Congress, the "hell no" crowd won't budge.

Quite frankly, given how much the Republicans have taken advantage and fucked him since he got to be president, I'm surprised he hasn't called them on it a bit more.

He has extended a hand to the GOP in Congress and gotten a fistful of shit for his troubles from the poo flingers in the tea party.

It is good to see him finally figure that out.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/o...res-the-uproar

"encourages American companies to bring money home and put it towards capital, investment, and–most importantly–American jobs."

dubya gave the US corps, esp BigPharma, with their $300B offshore cash the gift of 5% income tax in return for jobs. Of course, the corps did it, and of course, there were no jobs, and no penalty or follow up by dubya. BigPharma actually laid off 10s of 1000s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"two wars were backed by both parties"

The Repugs pushed hard for it, LIED about it, the dickless Dems went along.

---

You should stop saying that until you can prove they intentionally lied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"There is not consensus that the Bush Tax cuts lost revenue"

tax cuts NEVER pay for themselves, nor do they create jobs. That they do is one of the blatant, persistant VRWC lies.

---

Where is your proof that shatters the "Laffer Curve?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Prescription Drug Program. I'm OK with providing our seniors with better care"

... was gift to BigPharma. There's much proof that drugs do more more harm, or do nothing, than good.

---

How was it a gift? Would it be your idea to make seniors buy no drugs, so you can be happy about hurting BigPharm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Prevention is a much better solution.

---

I didn't know that bill remove preventative measure. Please give me a link on that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"It's those who turned their safety nets into hammocks "

yet again, parroting St Ronnie Welfare Queen lie.

---

Are you one of those Hammock user by chance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"we have no means to pay down now"

Restore taxes to 1960s level, and the policy-driven debt disappears in a few years.

---

At those tax rates and a global market, we will lose even more tax payers to other nation.

You could confiscate the wealth of the richest people we have, and it would only make a small dent. Thinking more taxes can be had so readily is just an excuse to raise spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

http://www.readersupportednews.org/o...res-the-uproar

---

So...

Do you agree reducing taxes corporate will bring that money back to our shores, or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Do you agree reducing taxes corporate will bring that money back to our shores, or not?

---

I'll answer that: No.

Considering they received a tax holiday under Bush, and seemingly will receive another one now, there's no incentive to pay the regular rate, whatever low it is. They'll just negotiate another tax holiday for a better rate.

What you haven't understood yet is that the solution isn't lowering the taxes, it's closing the loopholes that allow them to park their money overseas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I'll answer that: No.

Considering they received a tax holiday under Bush, and seemingly will receive another one now, there's no incentive to pay the regular rate, whatever low it is. They'll just negotiate another tax holiday for a better rate.

What you haven't understood yet is that the solution isn't lowering the taxes, it's closing the loopholes that allow them to park their money overseas.

---

One time actions don't cut it. Just as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Like Obama's was real earth shattering new stuff??? :lmao

---

Barry offered cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, SS, $4T+ in cuts and the Repugs said no.

As was pointed out, if dubya had done that, Repugs would ejaculating all over DC.

Repugs don't give a shit about the debt ceiling (a fake crisis), the economy, the jobless, the poor, sick, young, old, the country, or The American People. They only want to destroy Barry.

All destructive, obstructive politics, all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Barry offered cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, SS, $4T+ in cuts and the Repugs said no.

As was pointed out, if dubya had done that, Repugs would ejaculating all over DC.

Repugs don't give a shit about the debt ceiling (a fake crisis), the economy, the jobless, the poor, sick, young, old, the country, or The American People. They only want to destroy Barry.

All destructive, obstructive politics, all the time.

---

Bullshit.

It's just empty words until its in a tangible form.