With memories of last year's brutal debt-ceiling crisis very much on his mind, President Obama said last week, "We can't afford to go there again." He added, "The only thing the debt ceiling is good as a weapon for is destroying your credit rating.... I will not play that game."
This morning on Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) responded, "Yes, we will play that game."
For those who can't watch clips online, Graham's on-air comments about the "rude awakening" awaiting the White House were pretty remarkable.
"In February or March you have to raise the debt ceiling. And I can tell you this, there is a hardening on the Republican side. We're not going to raise the debt ceiling. We're not going to let Obama borrow any more money or any American Congress borrow any more money until we fix this country from becoming Greece. And that requires significant entitlement reform to save Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy. Social Security is going bankrupt in about 20, 25 years. Medicare is going bankrupt in 15 or 20 years. [...]
"Yes, we will play that game, Mr. President, because it's not a game. The game you're playing is small ball. You're talking about raising rates on the top 2% that would run the government for 11 days. You just got re-elected. How about doing something big that's not liberal? How about doing something big that really is bipartisan? Every big idea he has is a liberal idea that drowns us in debt. How about manning up here, Mr. President and use your mandate to bring this country together to stop us from becoming Greece."
It's rare for a prominent public official to put this much nonsense into a 90-second television appearance. Graham's comments make absolutely no sense, and his threat to hurt the nation on purpose is, for lack of a better word, nuts.
"We're not going to let Obama borrow any more money"? Actually, as Graham should know, raising the debt ceiling is about paying the bills for spending that's already happened.
"Social Security and Medicare" are going bankrupt? No, actually they're not.
The United States is at risk of "becoming Greece"? That's just plainly stupid.
Clinton-era rates on income above $250,000 "would run the government for 11 days"? No, it'd generate nearly $1 trillion in revenue over the next decade, which would help reduce the debt built up by the policies Lindsey Graham supported -- tax breaks for millionaires, two wars, Medicare expansion, and a Wall Street bailout, all of which was added to the national credit card without a moment's thought.
Obama needs to do something that "really is bipartisan"? Every major policy proposal of the last four years -- health care, Recovery Act, American Jobs Act, Wall Street reform, etc. -- included provisions that have traditionally enjoyed support from both parties. The radicalization of the Republican Party isn't the president's fault.
"How about manning up here"? There's nothing "manly" about hurting seniors while protecting millionaires at all costs.
But even looking past all of that, the eight words to remember here are these: "We're not going to raise the debt ceiling." In other words, according to Lindsey Graham, Republicans intend to hurt Americans on purpose. They will, quite deliberately, hold the global economy and the full faith and credit of the United States hostage -- again -- until the president agrees to take benefits away from senior citizens.
Why this isn't a shocking national scandal is an ongoing mystery.
For what it's worth -- and to Lindsey Graham, it's probably not worth much -- American business leaders, investors, and financial sector are siding with Obama when it comes to the debt ceiling. In other words, "job creators" think Graham and his Republican allies are damaging the country with their antics, which have no precedent in American history.
That generally means something on the right, but for now, that's no longer the case.
As for the White House, it seems the principle should be repeated frequently: the president will not negotiate with those who would deliberately harm Americans.
Leave a Comment:
I would like to see the president do a fire side chat (the yule log loop will do)
de-butting these false points, one by one. He never using his position of power,
(I hate the term bully pulpit,)
I would take everything Graham says with a grain of salt; he is up for reelection and is worried about being challenged by the Tea Party in the primaries. If Boehner wants to play smart he would let the Tea Party bring the country real close to the fiscal cliff if they refuse to go along with the deal. By December 22nd, the TP faction will be hearing a lot from their constituents and campaign contributors. We have been down the route of hostage taking with the debt ceiling and some of the TP faction have not learned a lesson from the last elections. Public opinion will turn on the TP even by their own constituents.
Graham DOES KNOW that raising the debt ceiling is paying the bills for money already spent. The Republicans are just spreading propaganda, using fear. This is what they do best. LIES and FEAR. Democrats know the truth. We are smart enough not to listen to Fox infotainment.
Fox News goes to court, wins right to lie
http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/
IMO it is important for the dems and obama to not even engage the gop in this insanity , which it appears the dems are going with this strategy so far....Let the gop open their mega pie holes and tell america they are going to destroy our credit line along with our economy , and just sit back and watch them sink themselves ....Then calmly present our job creation plan , which will expose everyone to who is working to help america , and who the real fools are
There is still (obviously?) the desire to tank the economy to pin what the Rs did (practically on their own) all on President Obama.
http://zfacts.com/node/468
Unfortunately, too many people buy into the angry rhetoric to keep up the false narrative (script) that drives the debt up further. This is how they want things, to do away with the New Deal.
Graham is pandering to the TPers, those that do not care that economy and revenues would increase if they would actually do things that would help with jobs, not cut jobs.
Graham, like most repubs, doesn't even have a basic grasp of the debt ceiling, math, or much of anything else. The debt ceiling doesn't just cover new spending; it covers all our current obligations to pay interest on the debt, among other things. Even if we stopped ALL SPENDING today, the debt ceiling would need to rise to cover things like the interest on the debt. Is Graham seriously willing to stop ALL SPENDING by the US government, from defense to education to salaries of federal workers, to his own unearned salary, and let the nation default on its existing debt by not paying interest owed on the debt? I doubt many people will applaud him and the repubs for holding their ground against that black man in the White House as the nation collapses into a major depression, taking the world with us. I dare say he'd be one of the first ones up against the wall in the ensuing chaos.
Even if we stopped ALL SPENDING today, the debt ceiling would need to rise to cover things like the interest on the debt.
That in itself is a problem. And with the continuing annual $ Trillion plus deficits it will only get worse. Pretty soon we will be raising the debt ceiling to pay for interest ONLY. I do not like the game the Republicans are playing with the debt ceiling, but I also do not like people focusing so much of the fiscal cliff talks on tax raises on the wealthy which will bring in about $160 Billion a year (per President Obama's numbers - $1.6 Trillion over ten years) which will cover about 10% of the annual deficits. That of course means we would still have deficits around $1 Trillion IF this is the only thing done. We need to all pay more in taxes AND cut spending. Even that will not be enough. There will still be deficit spending in the Hundreds of Billions (most likely) making the the debt even larger. We will never get the debt down to a realistic amount. We would have to have year after year after year of surpluses which I just cannot fathom will happen. And even if it did, I do not trust Congress to use the supluses ONLY for debt reduction. This whold fiscal crap with the federal government has been, and will continue to be a bad joke
Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on incomes under $250,000 will help keep the economy expanding, increasing taxes on income over that won't hurt the economy and will help with a down-payment on decreasing the deficit. As long as tax revenues increase faster than spending, the deficit, and eventually the debt, will decrease. Once the economy is in a stronger position, we can then consider whether or not to return all tax levels to what they were under Mr. Clinton. Which will further reduce, or possibly erase, the deficit.
Again.
There's already a lot of waste in DoD spending. We could easily cut 5-10% of the DoD budget, $20+ million, and not hurt our defense posture at all. The costs of Iraq and Afghanistan disappear from the budget by the end of 2014, when that happens the deficit will go down by another 20% or so.
Or you could get your "Bush, Raise Taxes NOW!" signs from 2003 out of your garage and start parading around with them.
You do still have those signs, don't you?
Doug,
Your premise that tax revenues will increase faster than spending may be true someday, but to say it will eliminate deficits (somewhat possible) AND start knocking down the debt is nearly impossible. To eliminate say, $10 Trillion of our $16 Trillion (and climbing) debt, you would need 10 $1 Trillion surplus years in a row, or 20 $ 500 Billion surplus years in a row, etc. NO WAY that will ever happen. No way. If there were even two years running surpluses (and I highly doubt they would be in the Trillion range) you can bet that the Congress would find a way to tap into that for pet projects to ensure their re-election. It is soooo predictable in today's world.
And BTW I do not have those signs. I think political signs and bumber stickers are stupid. They really serve no purpose in my mind.
Skip
That isn't exactly the way that debt works. The debt projects the amount of money we owe to our citizens or foreign countries. 11$ trillion of our national debt is self-owned. Once the service is given to the citizen that money is no longer calculated to the national debt. The only debt you need to concern yourself with is the remaining 5 trillion in foreign bonds. Now that is of some concern, but you're grossly misrepresenting it. You don't "pay off" debt that you owe to your own citizens. That's not how it works.
As for the $5 trillion in bonds: there are other ways to get around paying off those bonds that don't necessarily equate to losing money. That all depends on the condition of the bond and who is carrying it.
You will recall we had big surpluses under Clinton. The national debt was being paid down, and I recall reading alarmist articles about how BAD that would be for the economy and the nation. Then W came along, and with his repub congress, made sure to rid us of those dangerous surplus with two unfunded wars, a huge tax cut, and a medicare drug benefit. At the time, there was no complaint that they weren't funded. Now we are paying for those truly bad choices, and has been pointed out by some economists, we can't get out of this situation simply by cutting, spending, or growing our way out. None of those things alone will do the job. There is definitely waste out there---that's the Pentagon's middle name. Taxes do have to go up---corporate taxes as a percentage of all taxes collected is at an all -time low, yet the economy as a whole doesn't seem to be benefiting from the record profits that are being raked in. Growth will come, but not if the only answer repubs have is austerity, which is failing miserably in Europe, just as it has historically everywhere else it has been tried. I have to say that I'm pessimistic that our elected officials will come up with any workable solutions to our fiscal issues, especially when they are beholden to the very people who will be well-off no matter what happens to the rest of us. They can afford to fiddle while Rome burns.
Cartoon,
Once the service is given to the citizen that money is no longer calculated to the national debt.
I've heard this argument before. The "service" unfortunately is something tangible, be it future SS payments or other future entitlement/benefit. The original $$ was/is collected for a specific "service" but was borrowed against. Sooner or later you have to pay the piper. In our citizens case, most likely at a deep discount.
As for the $5 trillion in bonds: there are other ways to get around paying off those bonds that don't necessarily equate to losing money. That all depends on the condition of the bond and who is carrying it.
Spoken like a used car salesmen. There has been a lot of talk on how the not raising the debt ceiling would hurt our credit rating. Using financial tricks and loopholes on current bondholders wouldn't exactly endear us to future "investors", don't you think?
The unfortunate thing is that what you say is probably the way the politicians in DC think - "there are ways around" actually honoring our obligations.
The bottom line is that we cannot continue at this Trillion dollar pace and the "solutions" presented - either by compromise or the actual fiscal cliff are a drop in the bucket. They will not fix it.
My point was you are falsely framing the argument. You make it sound as though if you don't pay off the debt in 100% cash it somehow will collapse the economy. That isn't true. You can pay off these debts in different ways from forming new trade agreements to extending overseas protections or other diplomatic means. Bonds held by other nations are not typically exchanged for actual cash by the US and it's a fallacy to present it as though the agreements always are paid in cash. More often than not what other nations want is leverage. Now this is why the 5 trillion in and of itself is concerning because you don't want other nations to have huge amounts of leverage over the US and I already conceded that 5 trillion worth is too much. But acting as though it's a credit card that has to be paid off in cash is entirely disingenuous to the situation we are in.
Again you're falsely framing the circumstance. As long as the service is provided the debt dissipates itself. That's the nature of the debt. Again it does NOT work like a credit card.
Social security provides a revenue generating service to the economy that in turn provides extra taxes that, in the absence of the program, would cause less GDP growth. Cutting these programs in the long run ends up increasing your debt. You are framing this as though someone just took a loan out from a bank and now has to return the amount borrowed. But that is not true. The US economy thrives on the existence of some debt. You can make the argument that you believe the debt is too high, but your post indicates that you want to pay off all debt. You do realize that doing this is not only impossible, but if it were it would be economically devastating, yeah? That's because debt in the US is simply a projection of services that you are promising to your citizens at such and such time. THAT'S IT. Providing the service negates the existence of the debt and in and of itself promising a service to your citizens is not a destructive or bad thing.
Again Cartoon, yes providing a service in the future is one thing but the level of future obligations - if you will - is a way to large than should be. Of course I do not want to pay down all debt, but as you and others are doing with the theories behind the way government debt works (which I agree with you on), you are giving the impression that it is not that big a deal. Well, if the national debt was say only 4 or 5 Trillion (5,000 Billion) that would be OK, but it is 3 times that and growing. And to be sure paying off a service will negate the existence of the debt, but you make it sound as if that "service" whatever it is does not cost much. I already started recieving my SS statements telling me what I could expect in the future as benefits (thank god they stopped sending me the paper version). Now for me the "service" is an acutal check or direct deposit which does carry a cost. I for one, do not believe I will get that future obligation or service at the value they stated, if any. "Negating the service" does sound wonky and not as bad as saying paying me what I am owed, but in reality - that is monetary. And a lot of thos future services or obligations are and there is no way around it unless you just decide to not pay or pay at a greatly reduced amount which may wipe it off the books, but not help the receipient very much.
Ok then that is my misspeaking because that's not what I was intending to say at all. My point was that we need to prioritize the deficit and then worry about the international bonds that we've issued. The national debt- in so far as the 11 trillion we owe ourselves- isn't the main priority at this point in time. We have to get the deficit under control and then we have to pay off the bonds we have or come to some agreement internationally to exchange services (a trade deal or something) so that the bonds are considered paid. That was my point.
It seems like the conversation gets to this point that people think about debt like a credit card and then we just need to somehow cut spending by 8 trillion and that will get the debt down to 2 trillion. That's what I thought you were saying and if I misinterpreted you then I do apologize. What I was trying to say is that the current debt isn't like a credit card in that we don't owe anyone money (foreign debt aside). What we owe are services and once the service is rendered that obligation goes away. So the 11 trillion in debt can never be gotten rid of by stopping spending. That framing of the conversation- that spending will somehow magically end the debt- is what I was objecting to.
It seems like you and I may have just had an entire conversation while talking past one another lol. Gotta love it when that happens. If you were talking about future obligations then I entirely missed that point, because that's an entirely different issue.
Sorry skippy, Cartoon handed your ass to you on a platter. You lost this one.
Just sayin.
A South Carolina pharmaceutical executive and major contributor to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has been indicted for making at least $31,000 in illegal donations to the senator and embezzling at least $3.6 million of federal grant money, which Graham helped to earmark, The Post and Courier reports.
Jian-Yun “John” Dong, president and chief executive officer of South Carolina-based pharmaceutical company GenPhar, allegedly solicited a German national and GenPhar stockholder, who wired $36,000 over from a Frankfurt bank in 2007.
Dong then donated most of those funds through conduits -- such as his estranged wife Dahner Wang, daughter Deanna and GenPhar employees -- to Graham and his leadership PAC.
Gee, so now we know why he wants to reduce the care people get and not go after the pharmaceutical companies who are causing the meteoric rise in health care costs in the first place.
If Graham loses his relection bid, sounds like he'll have a job waiting for him.
We don't negotiate with Terrorists and Graham and the Repugs are Anti-American terrorists who wish to keep giving tax breaks to their buddies so the can keep donating to these crazzies like Graham.
RECALL LIndsey Graham. He is an obstructionist just to be one. The only time he gets his kisser on TV is when he is spouting garbage like this. Get rid of him. Congress needs people who will work together and compromise.
@Rachel Maddow...As I keep saying & the majority of the GOP keep proving my point...They're Stuck on Stupid[ity] and because of being "Stuck" it can't be fixed...So much for what's best for our Nation and its ppl...Lloyd B...Retired Marine Semper Fi
Pick up on the deception here. He claims to be talking about debt, but then says that "entitlements" need to be reformed NOT because of debt, but to make them solvent off into the future. Sounds like he really knows that entitlements, with 1 exception being the prohibition on negotiated prices in Medicare, have NOTHING to do with the debt. We got debt from tax cuts for rich primarily, 2 wars, a Medicare drug price giveaway and the financial collapse caused by Wall Street. If you're going to fix deficits and debt first undo what actually caused them.
Social Security did not create the debt; it is a holder of the debt! It's who we borrowed $2.6 trillion of our debt from. We owe most of the debt to ourselves and we are NOT in a debt crisis. Right now the crisis is economic recovery and jobs.
We need to make Democrats and the President stand firm - raise taxes on higher incomes, including Wall Street incomes. The necessary corollary to that is DON'T cut spending that benefits middle and lower income Americans because to do so is to essentially TAX them.
And yes, Mr President, don't play that debt ceiling game again. If they don't raise it, raise it yourself and let them challenge it in court if need be. You'll win and we all will win.
The reason why Republicans are talking about the debt ceiling is because it is the only card they have left. What is Obama getting by negotiating the lower rates for the rich when he already has the higher rates locked in for January 1? The Republicans are not giving Obama anything with the rates. The president is being tough with negotiations and that means Republicans are going to have to give up something in exchange for the negotiated lower raters. That mean the debt ceiling and more infrastructure spending and unemployment compensation extended if Republicans really want to deal.
There's precedent - it was the 2011 debt ceiling manufactured crisis.
It would be great if Obama plans on going 14th amendment on them, taking any future debt ceiling limitations away from Congress (also taken away, Republican leverage as hostage takers).
Even if Graham's Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy projections are accurate, they are not the driving factors behind the debt, and while waste can certainly be trimmed from Medicare, there are other ways to ensure their solvency, such as removing the limit on Social Security wages, or even increasing the contribution percentages slightly.
I wonder if the savings being proposed by changing the Consumer Price Index are actually generated by reducing the future cost of living increases in Social Security benefits - if so, this shouldn't be acceptable. From what I understand, the CPI used to determining the COLA for S.S. already doesn't include fuel or food and is fairly unrealistic for people on fixed incomes. I remember how S.S. benefits didn't change much in Obama's first couple of years and seniors were outraged at him for it (even though he had nothing to do with it).
Lastly, if Graham's assertion that raising taxes on the top 2% will only run the government for 11 days is actually accurate, that's a pretty good argument to increase their taxes 5% to 10% instead of what Obama is asking for. And we've always had progressive tax rates. They are fair, and don't punish successful people.
Mr. Graham, How about doing something big that really is bipartisan? How about manning up here, Mr. Graham and use your voice to bring this country together....
BTW we called our state representative today regarding the middle class tax bill - her response was she couldn't answer whether she would support the bill. Our response - we'll do our best to see that next election, she won't be making any decisions for us. Following Mitch McConnell's lead, we'll do whatever we can to make sure she doesn't get re-elected!
The simple answer to paltry and pouting ignoramuses like Lindsey Graham is very simple. Sir, the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. You sir, and the ilk on the right wing of your country, have become terrorists holding the nation's economy at peril to push your agenda that keeps losing with the voters. So, no, we aren't negotiating with you. You lost! Grow up!
Every Republican threatening to not raise the debt ceiling and thereby undermining the full faith and credit of the US is in violation of their oath to uphold and protect the US Constitution, which says quite clearly, "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." To not raise the ceiling would force a default. It is an act of treason.
Small minded Politicians' Need Apply: Haley Barbour Recommends 'Proctology Exam' For Republicans, Others to Follow:
The Elephant being the parties' iconic animal (threaten with extinction), would make such joke down at the Internal Medicine Department, Colonoscopy ward complete with video if necessary. Of course getting an instrument large enough and convincing the animal to drink the cleansing potion. Elephants in the circus or parade are followed by a group of clown, ironically to clean up after any inevitable mess.
There is old classic video described below, written for a time and propose that dates back to another area of suspected political clowns. The conniving Oliver (Norquist) Crangle is deeply interested in the small personal failings, in the style of J.E. Hover. He goes about reminding everyone in his file cabinet of some long forgotten transgression. This is not all that different from the infamous 'no tax pledge' now harvested by Colonoscopy to intimidate and distort what might be mistaken for government. It is absolutely true that these pledges do no one any good, and doing any good is not the intention in the least. Thus makes the Norquist collection as leverage to earn money and power for Norquist, who has it in his interest to destroy good governance, for reasons needing pure psychopathic delusion to comprehend. This would make Oliver (Norquist) Crangle a very tall man, but the stories turnabout causes Oliver (Norquist) Crangle to shrink to small man two feet tall.
I'm sure that an Elephants colon would require an instrument a dozen feet long. So we could imagine stacking or connecting a half dozen such small thinking politicians end to end to be used to thoroughly examine the Republicans icon for any malformations.
A short stack of Crangle politicians could be used for this private examination, allowing for a few who may want to remain, a careful accounting would not be taxing at all.
It was Ronald Reagan, who made this procedure popular, and assuring it would be covered by medical health insurance, it has oddly become the most frequently often used procedure.
Four O'Clock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_O'Clock
"Four O'Clock" is an episode of the American television anthology series The Twilight Zone.
Oliver Crangle is a fanatic who maintains records of people he deems evil, calling and writing their employers to alert them of their evil acts, demand their immediate firing, and threaten to involve higher authorities if they don't comply. Unsatisfied with the results of his anonymous threats, he searches for a more effective way to eliminate all evil from the world. He settles on the idea of shrinking the "evil" people to two feet tall. He cackles at the idea of that plan.
His acts attract the attention of the government, and Agent Hall is sent to investigate. Crangle tells him that he has finally devised a plan to shrink every "evil" person down to two feet tall at 4:00 that afternoon through sheer force of will. Hall dismisses him as a crank, recommends psychiatric help and leaves. Before departing, Crangle warns that Hall will be two feet tall but is ignored.
When 4:00 rolls around, Crangle is dismayed to find that he himself has been shrunk to two feet tall. His parrot, Peter, calls him a "nut" for his actions.
Storyline
Oliver Crangle seems to like making other people miserable. He phones a young man's employer to say that the man is a communist. He phone a school board to tell them a teacher is acting inappropriately with his students. He has a long list of people that he wants to tell on. He even arranges a meeting with an FBI agent and tells him that at 4 p.m. all of the nasty people in the world will undergo a transformation. The agent suggests he seek psychiatric treatment but it turns out he's right.
[opening narration]
Narrator: That's Oliver Crangle, a dealer in petulance and poison. He's rather arbitrarily chosen four o'clock as his personal Gotterdammerung, and we are about to watch the metamorphosis of a twisted fanatic, poisoned by the gangrene of prejudice, to the status of avenging angel, upright and omniscient, dedicated and fearsome. Whatever your clocks say, it's four o'clock - and wherever you are, it happens to be the Twilight Zone.
[closing narration]
Narrator: At four o'clock, an evil man made his bed and lay on it, a pot called a kettle black, a stone-thrower broke the windows of his glass house. You look for this one under 'F' for fanatic and 'J' for justice - in the Twilight Zone.
Another perfect example of why we need term limitations. This nutter needs to go away!!!
Let's try this bipartisan solution: eliminate the life-long pension for our millionaire Congresspeople.
Wow, what a hateful bunch. Funny thing is the Dems are no better than those Repubs. But you people here are too ignorant - and "party happy" - to see it.
It's not "Republicans" - or even this ying-yang that's destroying this country. It's politicians in general. Wake up.
I have never liked Linsey ...... Mainly because he has allways been against the Working Tax Payer , We need people in office that are there to represent America and do every thing in their power to make life in America better for the TAX Payer and not only the wealthy , You can see his Hatered for every American Citizen , what i want to see is all 12 million Illegal citizens to become legal Democrats to vote out these Bastards once and for all , make it an all out effort for American citizens to go after these Fascist .
PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS FOR GOOD .
here we go again, the republicans want to hold america's reputation and credit rating hostagesolely for the sake of screwing the elderly,poor and middle class. president obama is working hard to clean up the fiscal mess bush,cheney,paul ryan and john bolton left america. i can't wait til 2014, to rid ourselves of these no governing republicans to go away.
there is no outrage because Graham's voice is the only voice shouting. The media must include sane voices like Steve Benen to call out Grahman' silly temper tamtrum bull @!$%#
Lindsey Graham, you are projecting again. Just like so many Repugs, you attempt to say the debt is because of liberals.
Are Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush liberals?
That is where MUCH of the debt we have came from. SPENDing to run up debt, then the Dems. have been left with the steaming piles they left all over the WH lawn.
http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html
They cut taxes and spent, Clinton got us to surplus, but they just want to drown the government in the bathtub, meaning Medicare, SS must go, along with the "chicken in every pot".
"We're not going to let Obama borrow any more money or any American Congress borrow any more money until we fix this country from becoming Greece.' - Lindsay "Closet Queen" Graham. What Graham has NOT told anyone, is that MOST of Greece's problem is that most of Greece's rich population has NOT been paying taxes, much like the way that Graham and his criminal buddies want to happen here. If he was honest, he would saying that he prefers the U.S. to fail like Greece and let the rich keep their money. Strangely enough, it was U.S. bankers that have been guiding Greece to their financial hell, and SAME bankers that have been pushing the Republiturds in America.
I would send everybody here a fruit basket and case of beer if Obama went up to Boehner and said, "Look you dumb ass...you and your party got us into this mess and now you have the nerve to blame the Democrats! You need to wake up and start working with us in order to fix what you ruined. Get your ass out of the protective bubble you have been living in and start working with us in the real world"
Something like that...
Harsh and bold non politically correct words. This whole political speak mumbo-jumbo kind of dampers the crowd and take away from the urgency that needs to be seen.
Talk like a regular American if they are upset and stop using political terms.
Instead of "nuts" I think you mean traitorous.
Kinda like when then-Senator Obama called deficit spending criminal. Now it is the norm with a capital N - or should I say capital T as in Trillion. Both sides are guilty of running through the cash. The Republicans added $10 Trillion over 8 years and the current administration added another $6 Trillion in 4 years. All the deficit and debt "reduction" talk is ALL talk. We will still have rather enormous deficits even if they come to a "compromise" or even if the fiscal cliff hits. Instead of having $1.3 Trillion deficits, we will have closer to an even $ 1 Trillion. Wow, that will sure help.
Don't forget Reagan's share.
http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html
I am not a proponent of running deficits, but I am looking at the current situation. We need to somehow deal with this without having a hugely negative impact on the economy.
Foreign countries are on edge, too.
We are between a rock and a hard place. We have all that interest that tops it all off.
http://zfacts.com/p/gross-national-debt.html
Debt doesn't start over with each new administration skip. Obama hasn't added 6 trillion to the debt and Bush didn't add 10 trillion. That's not the way it works. Debt is simply a projection of monetary promises the government has made and not all debt is bad. If you promise to pay an employee a salary you are in debt to that employee the salary amount. This does not make you bankrupt nor, indeed, does the debt projection matter. If you promise to provide a service to your citizens then this debt is valid until the debt is "paid off" which at the national level means until the service is provided. The debt, again, doesn't care how much you take in or how much you spend.
If federal spending were set to 0 for next year and the deficit completely eliminated the US would still be in debt 16 trillion dollars. Cutting spending will not end the government's debt because the government's debt does not work the way your credit card works. When projections come out where they say "we're going to cut 4 trillion dollars" they are not talking about from the current debt projections. What they are saying is that there are estimates of X amount of spending taking place within X amount of years. The 4 trillion will be cut from that projected spending. The current debt- however- doesn't get touched.
The only time you need to worry about debt is when it is not self-owned. I will admit that the 5 trillion we owe other nations is of some concern, but you will not pay that debt off by cutting services in your local country. That's not the way foreign bonds work.
As I stated above Cartoon (30.6), spoken like a used car salesmen. I am an accountant and I do know how debt works, both when it comes to a person's credit card and when it comes to future obligations. It is STILL an obligation and considering that we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar to pay for our current obligations, that does not paint a rosy picture for the future - no matter how you try to spell it out with theory. And I still think your "self-owned" argument is weak. Technically your are correct, but the point I am making is the fact that what was promised (future obligation) and what is delivered to our own citizens are different. The promised "service" was/is higher than the actual service rendered. And that is not right.
This is not true. We are not borrowing any money currently and this is my point. You are acting like the national debt operates the same way as personal debt and it fundamentally does not. The nation issued a handful of bonds to other countries with one of those bonds being for nearly a trillion dollars to China and Japan. We have not issued new bonds since 2010. You are confusing the fact that we have existent bonds with the idea that this is somehow an ongoing, everyday process. It's not.
Current obligations (deficit) have nothing to do (at least not directly) with future obligations (debt). Sigh.
Self-owned debt means money that you owe your own citizens. Bonded debt is the debt you owe other nations. Self-owned debt is not problematic because all you have to do is print money to pay that amount off. As long as that debt is invested on a fixed asset or a tangible asset it will not cause inflation. Foreign debt, however, will cause inflation if you print money beyond the bonded amount. That, in addition to the leveraging issue, is why foreign debt has to be the primary focus. And how you pay foreign debt off depends on more than just physical coin because again the US doesn't literally borrow funds from other nations.
What service to our citizenry have we promised that isn't being met and what effect does the debt have on that service not being met?
Well Cartoon, obviously we will continue to see things differently. If all this so called debt is no big deal, then why all the wrangling on the fiscal cliff. There is some tangible issues when it comes to debt or current and future obligations. Yes you are right we can just print up more money from thin air, but it will come back to bite us sooner or later.
Currently we are meeting all of our promises to our citizens, but even the economists in DC have stated that some of the larger entitlement programs are going to run into trouble in the next few decades tryting to meet those "future" obligations or do you deny those experts positions?
Wow! Good job at showing that you are so much smarter than skip, Cartoon!
And where did you extrapolate from what I said that our debt is no big deal? Did I ever state that? No. Did I imply it? No.
Playing a strawman doesn't make you appear witty in a debate, 49.
Yeah here's the thing with context 49: when you ignore it, it makes you look like an idiot. The point I was making is that if you hire an employee and you state that you are going to pay them a yearly salary of $100,000 that means you are now in debt $100,000. Does this effect your company's profitability? No. Does it mean your company is in danger of bankruptcy? No. Does it devalue the worth of your business? No. All it means it that you owe X amount. That debt is not inherently destructive or bad.
You cannot just slap an overgeneralized, black and white label to the debt and then pretend like that label is logical and accurate. That's not the way it works. The debt is not this monstrosity threatening to crush the nation: it is a projection of owed assets. Management of these assets is complicated and oversimplifying the matter makes it impossible to actually deal with the thing you're talking about. Stupidity only begets more stupidity which is why fallacious or inaccurate ways of discussing a subject only lead to more harm than good. You can correct for fallacies, lies, or other problems within a persons argument without that meaning you refute the premise or the conclusion. Please take a basic logic class to learn more, thank you.
49.4, I say the generalizing about what the liberals' point of view of paying debt is appalling, this is just repeated political rhetoric.
There has been many posts I have put forth showing the debt accrued because of borrowing (mostly be Republicans), spending (mostly by Republicans) and cutting taxes by the Republicans in the past few decades.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
This is starve the beast tactics.
Trump is not liberal, yet he filed bankruptcy 4 times.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The stubbornness has already been pointed out.
Folks keep saying things as though it is fact. It's not fact, it's what they've been told to think.
I guess you are just here to clobber people with your blatant falsehoods and not to read the facts.
When people stop responding, then it's most likely due to futility of have any meaningful exchange. Just to let you know.
I am going to have to ignore you now.
You are not only not listening, but now putting words in my mouth with blatant use of quotation marks!
All credibility is lost. Bye.
It sure looked to me like he was staring at her breasts during the first half of the conversation.