The gun being pointed at children's heads is the growing debt and asking them to pay for it.

Bernanke is printing money at unprecedented rates to pay for the out of control spending but eventually that's going to catch up with us and our children also.

Whoever says inflation is currently running at around 2% hasn't shopped at the local grocery store lately. All of my suppliers have announced 3-6% price increases beginning January 1. Do you think the Federal paper printing has anything to do with that and what is in our future?

OK, for absurdity reasons I will allow your statement to stand, the debt is quite large. Now think interest rates, because no matter how you cut it, the vig is going to get paid. You neanderthals pretend that holding the debt hostage won't affect the interest rates or credit rating, and thats simply rubbish. If you cared about "the children", you would cease acting like a scorned one...

Right the out of control spending a republican nonsense talking point to get stupid people to look elsewhere besides them. Here is a clue, the debt has lowered under Obama despite the GOP fighting him tooth and nail all the way. And where did this deficit come from oh yeah thats right GOP borrow and spend trickle down voodoo economics. Funny how you ignore that when Reagan entered office the US was the number 1 lender nation in the world and by the end of his first term the US became the number 1 borrowing nation of the world.

FromDownHere: Would'nt you say that the drought of summer 2012 has more to do with inflation of grocery prices than printing money? No you probably would'nt.

FromDownHere,

I agree with your posting. Politicians and and a high percentage of the American people do understand or do not care or both that the huge debt that the US has accrued over the years is a major obstacle for the next several generations to absorb or pay down through budget surplus and/or through inflation. The Carter years of 18% interest rates was painful. The US is divided on who caused this fiscal mess versus spending time discussing ways to solve it. It is easier to bicker about who is at fault than do the hard work of resolving the issue which means sacrifices made by all Americans not just a select few.

Right now the Federal Government is funneling taxpayer money to the 1% through interest payments on the debt at the rate of about 1 billion dollars a day. In other words, 4.00-5.00 for every man, woman, and child in this country is being paid by hard working taxpayers to cover the interest on the debt per day. Think about it. Who do you think is carrying the notes on our debt? Certainly not anyone making 50k a year.

Also it's the deficit that is minutely coming down because the economy is minutely improving which means the debt is still growing at a rate of well over 1 trillion a year. And I agree, the Repubs are just as much to fault as the Dems for the current levels of spending. Point is: Raising the Debt ceiling doesn't help this enormous problem. Time to get serious.

BTW: Good post Bob M

As a gay male I find that GOTP members are equally irrelevant and even more repulsive than lady parts. Sorry ladies, nothing personal!

First off if you don't know who caused the problem then you can not solve the problem by throwing more money at it. Carters 18% inflation was caused by Nixons great ideal that he could trade employment with inflation to get balance instead that created run away inflation and high unemployment which peaked when Carter took office and by 1979 was starting to come down because of Carter putting the brakes on the economy. Then along came Reagan who decided to take the US off the industrial economy that created the US's number 1 lender status and put the US on a service economy with the belief that lots of low wage service jobs could create the same economic boom as high wage industrial jobs. Which is where we are today. Funny how everything the GOP says will create a booming economy never does in fact everything they do has turned out the reverse of what they claimed. To say that it is a spending problem is laughable, here is a clue, for all of his whining about welfare the reason Reagans economy didn't crash as badly as GWB's did was because of those welfare programs that put money back into the economy. Everything the GOP does to stimulate the economy fails mainly because they give it to the people who won't put it back into the economy instead the money is hidden in off shore tax havens where it just sits.

fromdownhere, you can stop pretending you are even-handed in this or any other situation. Watching your posts for years, you are actually a "concern troll". Where was your concern about the debt when Bush and the repub congress were running taking Clinton's surplus, which was actually paying down the national debt, and turning it into huge deficits to fund two wars, a huge tax cut, and an unpaid for medicare drug benefit? Answer: it was all fine and dandy with you and the repubs at that time, because it was repubs running the game then. Finally in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. A dem was elected president, and suddenly, the debt and deficit are magically of great concern to repubs. Like all other repubs, you have absolutely no idea on how to deal with the deficit other than the most destructive manner possible, by cutting spending. Of course, that spending you want to cut will be from programs that people actually pay into for their entire lives, like social security and medicare, but will not touch a penny from the most wasteful, corrupt entity in the government, the Pentagon. So what if you paid into social security your whole life? Boeing and Lockheed Martin need to make big profits building weapons systems that are overbudget, behind schedule, and don't work anywhere near as well as promised. Time to use the money wasted on weapons that are non-productive and put it into things this country badly needs, like modern roads, bridges, railroads, ports, and schools. This will not only provide good jobs, but will strengthen our nation economically, as well as business, which depends on modern, efficient infrastructure and educated workers to prosper. You can take your sham concern and go someplace where you won't be laughed at, like clownhall.com.

whomitmay,

The cause of our debt is a government that wants to spend more than it takes in and politicians who would rather kick the can down the road until after an election instead of dealing with the issue.

Folks like you are so stuck in your ideology and obsessive need to protect your party and blame the other party that this is why our debt will increase to over 20 trillion dollars under this administration. Just send your check to the US Treasury which as of today stands around $50,000 to cover your portion of the debt.

And by the way, the Great Deal and the implementation of the SS and Medicare is part of the spending problem. The laughable part is that the math does not add up.

Consider an average-wage two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers. But they can expect to receive medical services - including prescriptions and hospital care - worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.

The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.

Medicare covers 46 million seniors and disabled people. When the last of the boomers reach age 65 in about 20 years, Medicare will be covering more than 80 million people. At the same time, the ratio of workers paying taxes to support the program will have plunged from 3.5 for each person receiving benefits currently to 2.3.

"With Medicare, we are all still making out like bandits, shoving all those costs to future generations," Steuerle said. "At another level, we know that this system is totally unsustainable."

Bernanke is printing money at unprecedented rates to pay for the out of control spending but eventually that's going to catch up with us and our children also.

Provide any evidence for this claim

Whoever says inflation is currently running at around 2% hasn't shopped at the local grocery store lately. All of my suppliers have announced 3-6% price increases beginning January 1. Do you think the Federal paper printing has anything to do with that and what is in our future?

Provide any evidence that this claim is true.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that states the amount of money the fed has printed has been beyond that of the bonds issued or outside general GDP growth by the US (which is what has to happen in order for unmanageable inflation to take place). Prices have been going on up steadily in our country for a variety of reasons, but inflation doesn't seem to be a hugely contributing factor. I won't say inflation contributes nothing (that would be untrue), but I haven't seen any evidence that inflation has been the primary driver behind our current increase in costs. There are lots of reasons, some of which I list below, but inflation doesn't seem to be the biggest one. For the most part inflation seems to be a red herring the right wing uses as a tool to fear monger people out of actually dealing with the issues contributing to the rise in costs.

1) Our GDP growth continues to rise in general along with Wall Street which sets the exchange rate at which most goods and services are bought and traded
2) In the case of food services- our agricultural industry has been hard hit. We've suffered the worst droughts this nation has seen in over 100 years and we've experienced several of the worst natural disasters that we've ever seen as a nation in this past decade and the decade before. The costs of these problems do not suddenly go away once the television cameras turn off or once homes are rebuilt. Whenever a crop is destroyed that then gets passed on to the farmer who then passes it on to his buyers who then pass it on to their consumers. It's all a chain reaction. If the weather patterns get more severe- which they have been doing progressively- then this causes the price of food to go up.
3) Gas prices have steadily risen every single year since at least the 1970's, but I'm suspecting even before that (am just not old enough to know the 60's and 50's). Gas prices rise for several reasons, but one of those reasons is due to demand. As demand increases and more nations around the world become consumers of gasoline you're going to see prices go up. The only way to stop this is to stop other nations from bidding on oil, to prevent the oil that is mined here in America from leaving our shores, or to nationalize the oil industry to control the rate of growth. But until we do any of those things the price of oil will steadily increase with demand worldwide. Couple this with the recent problems we've seen in the Middle East- in particular with the Strait of Hormuz- and we suddenly have a spike in the oil trading market. Additionally nations like China have, in the last 30 years, gained enough economic prowess that they are able to outbid us on the international market which in and of itself means that we in the US have to pay more money to get oil. All of which contributes to the increase of costs.
4) We've also experienced general distribution problems within the past few decades in this nation. Part of the problem with a crumbling infrastructure is that we, as a nation, aren't able to consistently provide reliable railroad tracks and reliable roads. This increases the delay with shipments, increases the problems shipping companies have to deal with, increases the likelihood of breakdowns, etc.- all of which then get transferred on to the buyer which then gets transferred on to the consumer. Couple with that the increased activity with piracy on the high seas and increased airport security protocols and all of this equates to higher costs. Some of those higher costs I can live with, but some of those higher costs are due to pure negligence and our nation's inability to tackle actual issues (like our infrastructure)

There are probably a lot of other factors that are contributing to the rise in costs, but that rise has very little to do with inflation. I won't say inflation plays no part (that wouldn't be true), but the general freak out by the libertarian right is completely disproportionate to how inflation and the printing of money works. Basically the right wing uses inflation as a red herring so that we as a nation do not deal with issues like global warming and food distribution. The longer we ignore these problems and the longer we allow our conversations to address each one as if it is some singular force (as opposed to a combined problem) the higher costs are going to go and the more pinch everyone is going to feel. That's not necessarily due to the printing of money; that is mostly due to the incompetence of our government and the general unwillingness of our population to tackle actual areas of concern.

Also it's the deficit that is minutely coming down because the economy is minutely improving which means the debt is still growing at a rate of well over 1 trillion a year

This is not how the deficit and debt works. Running a deficit of 1 trillion does not mean we are adding 1 trillion to the national debt every year. Sigh.

Right now the Federal Government is funneling taxpayer money to the 1% through interest payments on the debt at the rate of about 1 billion dollars a day.

Provide any evidence that this claim is true

Raising the Debt ceiling doesn't help this enormous problem. Time to get serious.

This is not how debt ceilings work (sigh). Debt ceilings have to do with our ability to pay off debt and the amount in bonds we can issue. That is it. Even if we as a nation had a balanced budget and a debt under 5 trillion we would still have to raise the debt ceiling. Just because it has the word "debt" in it does not mean it's the same thing.

Bob has been flagged for spam

Yet again I find myself having to say this: Do not copy and paste what other people write and then post it here as though it's your own work (that's a crime, btw). You can link to an article and highlight the portion you believe to be informative, but do not just copy someone else's work and then paste it here on the blog. You need to use your own thoughts and your own words.

If Bob had a brain, he could use his own thoughts and his own words, but he's a Republican, so he doesn't (have a brain).

Cartoonthenews,

You liberals like to control everything. Who assigned you the blog police?

I gave credit to:Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute (that is not a crime, btw)

Or do you just ignore facts?

btw, here are a few facts:

The budget surplus or deficit is the difference between total federal revenue and spending in a given year. When the budget is in deficit, the government borrows from the public. Alternatively, when the budget is in surplus, the government can reduce debt held by the public. Thus, debt held by the public generally represents the total of all cash deficits minus all cash surpluses accumulated over time - GAO

The Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding includes the monthly interest for:

• U.S. Treasury notes and bonds
• Foreign and domestic series certificates of indebtedness, notes and bonds
• Savings bonds
• Government Account Series (GAS)
• State and Local Government series (SLGs) and other special purpose securities.

$359 billion of interest payments on 16 trillion dollars of debt and rising - 2012 - GAO

Facts are hard to refute.

www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/debt/budgetdebt.

TCinLA,

I do have a brain and used my own thoughts and words except when I needed to use an expert or facts to reinforce my comments.

It appears something you have a hard time understanding.

It seems that Bob's lengthy quote from the Urban Institute essentially faults the average American for putting $100,000 into the system, and later taking out $300,000, while apparently sending the debt into the future.

Well, how about if we don't put that debt into the future, but instead balance that deficit by getting bigger payments right now from people who take billions out of the system every year but only pay into the system about 14%?

I wasn't ignoring any facts Bob. You copy and pasted a segment of what they stated without providing the sourcing information of the work you were copying and then you coupled this by not providing context or relevancy of the statement. At this point in time I am not seeing a person who is blogging information on the basis of his own personal analysis and is simply sourcing that information for relevant facts and for authoritative backing, but am rather seeing a person who is selectively editing information to fit into a pre-determined mind set without providing actual context or sourcing information. Telling me that these people were a part of an institute does not tell me the name of the study or the relevant work to which your are citing nor does it tell me what the context of their work was or even if your version of their statement is appropriate to the study in general. This is because you aren't sourcing your information and you're improperly citing works by other people and are then passing them off as if such works as your own. They aren't and doing so is, as I said, a crime. Stop it. Use your OWN brain to formulate your OWN thoughts and opinions.

To be honest I really didn't even follow the brainless in Congress until this last horrible recession. I remember distinctly walking by the television with a Republican Senator being interviewed about the TARP and TARF programs. He was asked "Now that you have had a chance to go home and listen to your constituents, what was the response?" His reply "Well my office was absolutely inundated and the response was about 50/50. 50% said no and the other 50% said hell no." "So how do you plan to vote?" he was asked. His response "I'm voting for the bailout because I KNOW BETTER." I literally stopped in my tracks.

Symbolically people were standing in the streets yelling for help from their government while losing their homes, retirements and savings and the fearless leaders of our country, Bush, Obama, and my candidate of choice Hillary Clinton said "I have an idea, The heck with the public let's bailout the financial institutions with billions of taxpayer dollars." Ever since then I have been passionate about the imbecile actions of those that control our lives.

So my answer to where was I when the Republicans were running the country into the ground? I was enjoying a perfectly stress free life without thinking about politics assuming those running it knew what they were doing. I really don't care if there is a "D" or an "R" after a politician's name. It's time to call out those that suck at their job, and they are all pretty sucky right now.

Here he goes again blaming both sides while knowing that it is only 1 side causing the problem.

Cartoonthenews,

Here is my source:

Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits Over a Lifetime

C. Eugene Steuerle, Stephanie Rennane

Publication Date: June 20, 2011 Urban Institue

I used my own thoughts and words except when I needed to use an expert or facts to reinforce my comments.

It appears something you have a hard time understanding.

In your previous blogs you ask for evidence and then when someone posts some evidence you want to reject it because it was not the writers original thought.

You obviously do not want to read the truth because it will burst this make-believe bubble you and your democratic friends are living in.

The reality is the the US is going broke and folks like you are in denial and kicking the can down the road to the next generation.

I have a good grasp of what is plagiarism and what is needed to give writers credit for their work so stop the lecturing.

In your previous blogs you ask for evidence and then when someone posts some evidence you want to reject it because it was not the writers original thought.

Not even close. You were introducing a new argument: that social security and medicare have to be reformed as part of entitlements. You then made the statement that they are disproportionate and then quoted an excerpt from the thing to which you were referencing (without providing that reference information). You did not explain why this quote was relevant, what this quote proved, or why their statements were important. And you STILL haven't provided the sourcing of this information. You made no indication as to the relevancy of the information you were providing. That is NOT formulating a cogent counter-point to the discussion. That is, as I've said 3 times now, you copy and pasting what someone else said and then presenting it as though it's your own work. For the record you do realize that you've now been caught in a lie, yeah? Was it your own individual thought or was it a direct quote from some other people? Because you've now claimed both to be true.

You obviously do not want to read the truth because it will burst this make-believe bubble you and your democratic friends are living in.

What truth and what is the make-believe bubble that I am living in? I have not seen you provide a truth yet. You made an arbitrary statement without providing the information from which you were sourcing (thus making it impossible to fact check or to read more on) in a paragraph that was largely disassociated from the conversation at hand to introduce a new argument under a premise which you still have yet to prove.

There seems to be another problem here with Republican bloggers and that is non-sequitur posting. IrishPat, Scott, and you seem to have a problem keeping on topic. You constantly try to change subjects and move away from the conversation at hand from post to post to post which makes it entirely difficult to figure out what it is that you're trying to argue. Herein you were making the argument that reforms need to take place, although you did not explain why, and then you made the statement that medicare and social security were a part of those reforms. You then quoted people saying that there was a disproportionate turnover, but no one knows why this is relevant because you did not prove your premise. You simply let the quote end the statement as if the quote, in and of itself, is self-evident. This is because you weren't trying to use original thought despite making an original argument and that is why I'm trying to tell you that you need to engage things differently.

The reality is the the US is going broke and folks like you are in denial and kicking the can down the road to the next generation.

How does a nation "go broke" and how am I in denial about it? What can am I kicking down the road to the next generation? Do you even know what my personal beliefs are on debt and deficit?

I have a good grasp of what is plagiarism and what is needed to give writers credit for their work so stop the lecturing.

And yet you STILL haven't sourced your work after 3 posts. Again this is because you were attempted to co-opt someone else's thinking as if it was your own. It's borderline plagiarism like I already said.

When you engage in academic discussions you state your premise (in this case the debt is too large). Then you provide your sub contentions affirming the premise. Then you provide a conclusion tying the sub contentions in with the premise and that conclusion should prove all the above to be true. You provide evidence as support structures for the arguments that YOU are making. Is this what you did? No.

I still to this point in time have NO idea what was relevant about that information or where it comes from so I cannot figure out whether or not you're taking the study accurately. All I know is you don't like medicare and social security, but that's it. That doesn't tell me squat.

Some following Day finally made it to the big time with that one, LOL. Maybe the dingos' got your baby.

Cartoonthenews,

Thanks for the schooling in debate and writing a college term paper. It appears you are really into the art of writing a paper which is better than some of these postings I read.

Here is my original posting and premise:

Politicians and and a high percentage of the American people do understand or do not care or both that the huge debt that the US has accrued over the years is a major obstacle for the next several generations to absorb or pay down through budget surplus and/or through inflation.

I also posted:

The cause of our debt is a government that wants to spend more than it takes in and politicians who would rather kick the can down the road until after an election instead of dealing with the issue. And by the way, the Great Deal and the implementation of the SS and Medicare is part of the spending problem. The laughable part is that the math does not add up.

So based on that premise I used a paper two economists from the Urban Institute that stated:

The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.

Medicare covers 46 million seniors and disabled people. When the last of the boomers reach age 65 in about 20 years, Medicare will be covering more than 80 million people. At the same time, the ratio of workers paying taxes to support the program will have plunged from 3.5 for each person receiving benefits currently to 2.3.

"With Medicare, we are all still making out like bandits, shoving all those costs to future generations," Steuerle said. "At another level, we know that this system is totally unsustainable."

Those two statements is why I believe reforms have to take place.

The two statements are not self-evident I agree without reading the author's paper, but I will leave that up to you. I do not have the room in this posting to write a thesis on my position nor do you to refute besides being critical of my writing skills.

Here is the data of which the two authors wrote their paper:

These tables provide estimates of the lifetime value of Social Security and Medicare benefits and taxes for typical workers in different generations at various earning levels. The tables are updated to reflect assumptions and projections in the 2011 OASDI and Medicare Trustees reports. The “lifetime value of taxes” is based upon the value of accumulated taxes, as if those taxes were put into an account that earned a 2 percent real rate of return (that is, 2 percent plus inflation). The “lifetime value of benefits” represents the amount needed in an account (also earning a 2 percent real interest rate) to pay for those benefits. See http://www.urban.org/retirees/Estimating-Social-Security.cfm for more information on assumptions and methodology.

Two sets of tables provided for different Social Security assumptions: one assumes that workers retire at age 65, and the other assumes that workers retire at the Normal Retirement Age. In both sets, we assume the worker receives Medicare at the eligibility age, 65.

So where did I take credit in my postings for someone else's writings?

I cannot wait for the next lesson in debate and critical writing skills.

So now you're changing the subject and are doing so while entirely failing (for the 4th time) to provide the original source of the material. You still aren't explaining the premise, justifying the information given, explaining how they correlate, or providing context and relevancy. Every problem I pointed out before is still in existence. You keep failing to cogently address your own position. Which is fine- if you don't want to represent your position in a way that other people can follow that's your own personal decision- but then you cannot become upset when other bloggers make statements about your incoherency and especially not after I've given you 4 freaking tries to make your case.

Cartoonthenews,

I failed the class, thanks for being patience.

I will wait to retire, enjoy my social security checks and Medicare coverage, and let the next generation take care of me.

Those were my orginal thoughts.

You're right, brentwilson,that's been their strategy all along. I don't think the President or the Dems have done a good job (at least not yet) explaining to the public that raising the debt ceiling allows us to pay for bills already incurred by congress. Once the public understands that, I think they'll support the President wholeheartedly.

I suspect they are also motivated to pick this particular hostage because it doesn't involve them specifying their own cuts.

This.

They know that all of their rhetoric about "excessive spending" is total male bovine excrement. They know it because Obama hasn't passed any bills to increase spending! The deficits we have now are all the consequences of laws that Republicans could have changed when they had control of the Government ... and didn't. And the reason that they didn't is that all of that spending is popular with the Republican Base.

So if there's going to be any cutting, they want Democratic prints on the knife.

So if I borrow money from the bank to pay my current debt obligations am I adding to or decreasing my overall debt?

Neither. Borrowing money to pay a debt leaves youe equally in debt.

Notice how they always try to make the strawman argument that government debt is just like personal debt while ignoring that what their leaders did was cut their wages then went out and borrowed money based on their old wages before they took the cut. Now they are trying to say the problem is they spend to much which isn't the problem, the problem is they cut their wages to below what they needed to run the country with then borrowed on money that was no longer there meaning that cutting spending won't do a thing because they already spent that money and are now talking about cutting their wages even more with every dollar of spending they cut out which means even more borrowing. Which is why no republican has ever been able to balance a budget.

So if I borrow money from the bank to pay my current debt obligations am I adding to or decreasing my overall debt?

This isn't how national debt works.

It's only a big deal if someone tries to make it a big deal... are you listening Republicans?

In 1917, to ease financing for the United States' entry into World War I, Congress set an overall limit—the debt ceiling—and let Treasury issue as many Liberty Bonds as it needed to within that limit.

So... what President has raised the debt ceiling most often?

NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER REAGAN: 17 times or Once every 5 months: 1981, 1981, 1982, 1982, 1983, 1983, 1984, 1984, 1984, 1985, 1985, 1986, 1986, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1987

NUMBER OF TIMES RAISED UNDER BUSH: 7 times or Once every 13 months: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2008.

NUMBER OF TIMES UNDER CLINTON: 4 Times or Once every 24 months: 1993, 1993, 1996 and 1997.

UNDER OBAMA: 2 Times or Once every 15 months: 2009 and 2010.

Since 1962, debt ceiling increases have been enacted 76 times

Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times

The country will probably live through it again... a few more times... At least until the Republicans grow up and realize the country is getting sick of their continued nonsense and they start acting like responsible adult legislators and not the namby pamby snotty-nosed little jerk-butts they are now.

It's a scary read. Too many things reflect what the current Republicans are trying to do.

One of the best books I have ever read, and yes, it does provide a clear picture of what repubs have been doing since the days of Reagan.

I think a one party system would be worse than what we have now. But I would be interested in learning your view of how the Rep party "screwed up so royally." Always willing to learn from others....

How did the Republican Party "screw up so royally"??

Bush tax cuts increased the deficit and the debt without improving the economy, they actually made things worse.

Bush's unpaid-for wars, his invasion of Poland, er, I mean Iraq, made our foreign policy worse.

Republicans' failure with Medicare Part D to allow the government to negotiate drug prices for savings (like the Veteran's Administration can do) led to massive millions paid out to their bosses in the drug business.

I could go on and on, but those are good for starters.

TCinLA:

I have no doubts that the Bush era didn't help much. But I must ask a few questions: (a) Are you saying that the risky/subprime lending that bankers embarked upon for many years would never of hurt our country like it did in 2007/8 if it had not been for the Bush tax cuts? (b) I don't understand your reference to Poland...what are you suggesting? Are you saying it was somehow similar to how Poland was invaded in 1939?

Great point Missy -- cut the wages of Congress and the Prez.

This guy's four years has been "catastrophic" on so many fronts... the numbers every month reinforce that. And the Republicans had NOTHING to do with this failures policy that cripples this nations Industry on a daily basis.

So the president is a failure because unemployment is going down and employment is going up? What?

That is a scary dream Jane. I hope it never happens to either party. But if someone like you gets elected then yes our military could be used against us. Scary dream indeed.

So just spend into bankruptcy and NOBODY can stop him.....*Wheeeeeee*

What are you talking about Scott? The proposition was that the president could make the decision as long as Congress was notified. Congress could, at any time, vote to stop or change the rules or decision to raise the debt ceiling. It would be adding more checks and balances to our current system, not less. Additionally the debt ceiling has NOTHING to do with whether or not we're spending more.

Let's go over the cliff....further devastate the American Economy which is what Hussein has been working towards the last four and let's let these Tax and spend Liberals ACTUALLY have to PAY the higher taxes they have been yearning for and see how their own Medicine tastes! Cut these Welfare programs AND Military spending and let these liberals actually contribute to the lowering of the debt this failure has incurred over the last 4.

Rachel did not post this, Steve did. You built way too many strawmen to answer, perhaps you are sponsored by alfalfa farmers. Being a "Love and Peace" person, you should be quite concerned with our absurd military spending, but you instead seem focused on other people. Good luck on those "spending cuts", as your leaders have ZERO courage to identify a single one of them.

Sooo...Is it the President's job to LEAD? just as his non-existent Budget... His "Leadership" show's with every jobs report and the welfare rolls. And KNOWING that Hussein's "entitlement State" is on the verge of Bankruptcy and nearing Insolvency...AND being as ALL of these Social giveaway programs ARE Liberal in origin.......would it behoove this liberal to TRY and lead just once?

Ah, the trolls are thick today, not only in numbers but in their own cluelessness. Sure, scotty, let's make all those cuts you want. As a repub, I'm sure that all of them come from social programs, programs that people pay for from their checks every payday. But that doesn't entitle them to their own money in your eyes. Instead, make sure we take the money they put into the system, and use it to pay for more tax handouts to the rich and corporations. The anger over handouts only extends to individuals, not corporations like GE, that not only didn't pay federal taxes, but actually gets refunds of billions of dollars. The debt wasn't created by Obama---in case you weren't awake during the eras of Reagan and 2 Bushes, they did more than their share, but I'm sure you had no complaints over that. Deficits are actually good, (one of Reagan's advisors actually said that during his administration), and surpluses are bad, (again, actually heard that fear coming from repubs when Clinton was running surpluses). Deficits are only bad when a dem is in charge. Why is there a big deficit now? Because social programs meant to keep people from going homeless and starving to death in the streets during times of economic distress are being used as they were intended. The economic distress was created by Bush and his policies, and as usual, dems have to clean up the mess. I wouldn't trust a repub to run the treasury of the local Justin Bieber fan club, much less the United States. History has shown time and again that repubs talk a big game on fiscal responsibility, but have never met a scam they didn't like. I HOPE we go over the cliff, so the Pentagon is finally forced to spend responsibly. And by the way, wackjob, the President's name is Barack Obama. Calling him Hussein, his middle name, just shows what an unbalanced, hateful jerk you really are. Isn't it time for your mommy to put you down for your milk and cookies and a nap?

Raising taxes is Obama's singular focus -- which shows that he isn't focused on the correct issue. He is majoring in a minor and he is distracting the focus away from spending cuts

Obama has proposed anywhere from 4 and 6 trillion dollars in cuts. How is this "distracting" from spending cuts? He has stated that he will not offer those spending cuts unless he gets revenue increases as well. The fixation with revenue increases comes about because Republicans for the most part do not want to see revenue increased (although Boehner is an exception to this rule). We need both spending cuts and revenue increases to fix our problem. Since we all agree on spending cuts the emphasis now gets focused on revenue since that's the only area where we're in conflict. You've completely misrepresented the argument here as it's been presented.

Yet he gets reelected -- amazing how we all want handouts these days.

The amount of federal assistance programs hasn't increased under Obama.

Almost 50% of our population (including my sister's family)pays ZERO in federal taxes despite using our federal resources.

That is because of the recession, the tax cuts put into place by Bush, and the general stagnation/lowering of wages. If you'd like to see this problem reversed there are few ways we can. First would be to increase the minimum wage and force companies to start paying their workers more money. Second would be to increase taxes- but since you just spent the first portion of your rant talking about how you don't like tax increases I'm going to assume this is either an oversight by you or a blatant contradiction. The third would be to get out of the recession. Getting out of the recession is the only one of these 3 that cannot happen overnight by law- we are moving in the right direction (unemployment is now at 7.8%), but we haven't gotten to where we need to be (below 6%). Until that happens you're going to see more people being able to opt out of paying federal income taxes. For the record the 47% number to which you're referring to was only applicable during the height of the recession. More people are paying federal income taxes now. That study is no longer representative of the current taxation system. To be fair that study was simply a report by the CBO over tax rates (something it issues annually) and people seem to just be ignoring all the more recent reports which shows the number of people not paying federal income taxes going down.

You are straight out of a Comic book. What did the American people do before LBJ and the Welfare society? Look at the results of the Welfare Society...One Parent households Dropout rate through the roof,incarceration rates up...The numbers on Food stamps and Welfare, disability all at record highs. America's credit rating has taken a hit....Gas prices under Hussein has TRIPLED...these are all things that are FACTS...and this president holds the responsibility for the results of his welfare policy.So...hey, let's go over the cliff BECAUSE Hussein does not want to make these social programs viable for the long term, he just wants to be the guy to hand them out. Equal pain under the sequestration AND Liberals get to pay the higher taxes they desire as well...win,win!

Has anyone mentioned the fact that you are the moron? Go over to clownhall, where your stupidity won't be so obvious.

Scotty: Cherry picking history to find right wing plums sure makes your position sound desperate. How about bringing up your troll game a tad, your emotions are sticking out. Right wingers who bring up reasonable points worth intellectual discussion are who and what we fear and respect, like Chris Christie. Sure, the dude sometimes skews wingnut, but he refuses to be completely dishonest. If you are able and ready to speak the truth and respect known facts, go right ahead. Otherwise your caps laden diatribes are a joke...

Wow....You are dismissed.

Cartoonthenews,

I know you do not enjoy the facts.

The bipartisan Tax Policy Center stated in 2011 76 million people, about 46 percent of the people who filed taxes, did not pay a penny in income taxes, according to an analysis of IRS data. A whooping 1% drop from the height of the recession. Supply me some facts that say otherwise or is that a crime?

....so your rebuttal is to state that my analysis is correct?

Which taxes were raised by President Obama? You do know, don't you that the reason so many people don't pay Federal income tax is because they're not earning enough money to meet the income level required?

Like to blame the victims, do you?

Too late. You wingnuts turned Obama down during the last debt ceiling fiasco, when the ratio offered was much greater. Because you folks did not want to give Obama a "victory", you now find yourselves with zero leverage. It's self-inflicted.

Who cares about "Leverage" when the right thing is all that Hussein needs to do? If he does NOT address Entitlement reform, go off the cliff...crash the economy FARTHER and we will see who takes responsibility for not doing the right thing about addressing the Entitlement reforms.He wants to hand them out, just don't want to make them solvent....What a joke.

Scotty: Your use of superlatives, caps, and talking points is very impressive. Now it's time for your "leaders" to spell out and propose those "entitlement reforms". Smart money says they are too chicken to paper themselves. At the end of the day you either have courage that matches your convictions, or not. So far: not.

YOU need to remember that it was "The Republican revolution" that implemented Welfare reform WITH the help of Bubba and CREATED the balanced budget. And AGAIN...these Government giveaways are NOT a "divine gift" from God. They were Created by LBJ and the inception of "The great Society" to end poverty...HOW did THAT go? Look at all the ills created by his welfare society and the money thrown down a rathole in the attempt. One Parent homes explode, dropout rate and Incarceration rate exploded as a DIRECT result of welfare and One Parent homes....This (Welfare Bennies" is NOT a "divine right" and has been FAR,FAR more hurtful to this country than any good it has done, and should disappear for the long term health of this country.

Great job of conflating things together that have no relationship to each other. Why did LBJ create his Great Society program? Because is was needed. It addressed issues like lack of healthcare for the poor and elderly, and lack of food for the poor. Kindly explain why taking care of the sick and the hungry created one parent homes and increased the dropout and incarceration rate. Did those kids who suddenly had food in their bellies decide to drop out and become criminals? Did the elderly, who now had healthcare, now become criminal masterminds? Did parents who suddenly have food decide to break up? What do you think would happen if we suddenly followed your brilliant plan and got rid of all the "bennies" like social security, medicare and medicaid? How would you feel, knowing you paid into those systems decade after decade, and now suddenly that money has been taken from you, never to be seen again, all so the very richest can have more tax cuts, and the Pentagon can squander more on one worthless weapons program than would take care of hundreds of thousands of people who need food each year? As for the balanced budget under Clinton, (or Bubba, as you call him, as apparently you aren't swift enough to remember anyone's actual name)---repubs opposed it, and Al Gore had to be the tie-breaking vote to get it passed. So, over repubs dead bodies, Clinton got rid of the deficit and gave us a surplus. We all know that repubs only reward failure, like Preibus and Cornyn, so I can see how you are so confused. The GOP is the party of failure, hatred, racism and ignorance, and you are proof that there are still plenty of folks out there who embrace those things.

Correlation is not causation. There is no factual evidence the Great Society created the problems. Our culture underwent a radical transformation over a period of 10 years much like our transformation during the Roaring 20's and the Depression. Societal norms are static.

S3AN: You are wrong, and you know it, on multiple levels. None of the examples you cited were remotely close to one party threatening the full faith and credit of the USA. Posturing does not count, the modern Republicans go the full monty. Reagan raised the ceiling seventeen times, but that does not fit your narrative so it goes unmentioned. If we lack "credit worthiness", why do Americans and others continue to lend to us? The debt limit has to do with spending that has already happened and that we are obligated to pay back. You "both sides do it" people are the very people who give the right wing the courage to be the scoundrels they are, so go ahead and be proud. As far as TRMS and fact checking, they have yet to provide me with the vaccuous and suspect "examples" you provided in this post, not even close. BTW, none of us care what political party you belong to or support, we take your words for what they are. The fact that you went ahead and mentioned you are not a Republican to somehow boost your cred is laughable.

Honestly? The hostility in your tone says far more than I ever could. Believe what you will, my friend and have a great day.

Honest hostility beats fake facts any day.

I don't know why I'm entertaining this, particularly considering that all of this information is readily available. But, you want sources to confirm widely available information? Well, you're in luck. I am in the process of writing a piece on precisely this topic; therefore, they are all at the ready and here is every single one, beginning with those addressing the factual inconsistencies in the original post. As you will see, ad nauseam, none of my observations on the post errors are even remotely, to borrow your term, "suspect." But then, I don't need TRMS, or any other syndicating show, to do my fact-checking for me - not an affront on the platform, just restating your own hostile words. Now, a few of my own:

1) Obscure law? Not remotely. It is one of the few statutes the public has maintained a peculiarly astute awareness of since the 1960's when Southern Dems & Republicans attacked Kennedy/Johnson fiscal policy (Source: CONG. AND THE NATION: 1969-1972 64 Robert A. Diamond ed., 1973; Alternately, Anita S. Drishnakumar, “In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 42, 2005, p 19)

2) Since 1937? No, it stems from Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. (Source: Austin, Andrew and Levit, Mindy, "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases," Congressional Research Service, Summary; Alternately, look it up in Wikipedia, geesh.)

3) Never caused a crisis? Wrong. It nearly always does. See:

a) 2006 Debt Standoff (Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521 or http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp)

b) 1995 govt. shutdown; (Source: Stephen Gettinger, The Budget: The Debt Ceiling "Hammer," 20 CoNG. Q. WKLY. REP. 1400, 1400 (May 23, 1995) (reporting the House of Representatives' purposeful withholding of debt limit increase legislation in reserve as a "weapon" with which to force President Clinton to accept legislation that he could otherwise freely veto; Alternately, https://www.tsp.gov/PDF/formspubs/GAO-AIMD-96-130.pdf)

c) 1985 debt crisis from GRH deliberations (Source: 41 CONG. Q. ALMANAC 457, Mary Cohn ed., 1985; Alternately, Anita S. Drishnakumar, “In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 42, 2005, p 22)

d) Any of the 1970''s debt debates serving as catalyst for the Gephardt Rule Sources (Source: Act of Aug. 3, 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-333, 92 Stat. 419 (temporarily in- creasing ceiling to $798 billion); Act of Mar. 27, 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-252, 92 Stat. 185 (extending temporary limit of $752 billion); Act of Oct. 4, 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-120, 91 Stat. 1090 (temporarily extending and increasing limit to $752 billion); Act of June 30, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-334, 90 Stat. 793 (temporarily increasing limit to $700 billion for fifteen months); Act of Dec. 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 691, Pub. L. No. 93-173 (further increasing and extending the temporary ceiling of $465 billion); Act of Mar. 15, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-232, 90 Stat. 217 (increasing and extending temporary ceiling to $627 billion); Act of July 1, 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-53, 87 Stat. 134 (extending existing temporary ceiling of $465 billion for five months).

e) Roosevelt debt taboo in 1940, (Source: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bmNGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DNEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4317,2818131&dq=debt+ceiling&hl=en; Alternately, http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/debt-ceiling-limits-through-the-ages/)

4) An obscure law turned into a political weapon for the first time? Not even close. (Source: Stephen Gettinger, The Budget: The Debt Ceiling "Hammer," 20 CoNG. Q. WKLY. REP. 1400, 1400 (May 23, 1995) (reporting the House of Representatives' purposeful withholding of debt limit increase legislation in reserve as a "weapon" with which to force President Clinton to accept legislation that he could otherwise freely veto; Alternately, see any variation of the above crises sources, or nearly any extended debt limit debate from 1933-2012 - all were relative "crisis" periods, respectively, with multiple variations of one party attempting to "wield" the debt limit against the other).

5) Kevin Drum example? Half-truth. Shutdown was equally due to issues w/ debt limit statute (Source: Stephen Gettinger, The Budget: The Debt Ceiling "Hammer," 20 CoNG. Q. WKLY. REP. 1400, 1400 (May 23, 1995) (reporting the House of Representatives' purposeful withholding of debt limit increase legislation in reserve as a "weapon" with which to force President Clinton to accept legislation that he could otherwise freely veto; Alternately, https://www.tsp.gov/PDF/formspubs/GAO-AIMD-96-130.pdf)

6) The debt limit statute reflects long-standing public policy considerations of principled borrowing (Source: U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. I, 2.; Alternately, Austin, Andrew and Levit, Mindy, "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases," Congressional Research Service, Summary e.g. "Congress has always placed restrictions on federal debt;" Alternately, Marshall A. Robinson, The National Debt Ceiling: An Experiment in Fiscal Policy, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1959, p. 5. e.g. "[the debt limit] expresses a national devotion to the idea of thrift and to economical management of the fiscal affairs of the government.”

7) There is a (critically necessary) public reckoning implicit within the statute's execution. (Source: Anita S. Drishnakumar, “In Defense of the Debt Limit Statute,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 42, 2005, pp. 2, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 25, 26).

8) The current debt limit media buzz is a prime example of that reckoning. (Source: Google "2012 debt limit" and take your pick from any thousand open debates serving as a public reckoning of the breathtaking bipartisan fiscal imprudence of the current legislature).

9) It has traditionally served as catalyst for budget reform precisely because it is debated independently of budget procedures. (Source: Treasury Revises Debt Ceiling Deadline to Mid-May, CONG. DAILY, May I, 2002, Appropriations e.g. comments by members of Congress regarding the relationship between the Bush Administration's $1.35 trillion tax cut and the need for a $450 billion increase in the debt limit in 2002; Alternately: It's All In How You Look At It, CONG. DAILY, May 16, 2002, Budget (describing the statutory debt limit as a "powerful political tool for the minority" and a "powerful reminder" of the necessity for structural reform of Social Security and Medicare; Alternately, Dan M. Kahan, Democracy Schmemocracy, 20 CARDOZO L. REv. 795, 801 (1999) e.g. arguing that "Congress is in its least deliberative cast of mind in the appropriations process, where members routinely auction off government largesse to the interest groups that are best positioned to support members' reelections"; see also WILDAVSKY & CAIDEN, 53 e.g. describing the relationship between "specialized publics" and government agencies, and these agencies' ongoing contacts with appropriations committees).

10) Congress already executes omnibus budget-debt limit burritos when they are attempting to avoid public scrutiny over dubious fiscal policy - they don't need more wiggle room for fiscal malfeasance. (Source: CONG. AND THE NATION, 1993-1996 55 Ann O'Connor eta!. eds., 1997 e.g. discussing how the Clinton Administration and the Democratic leadership circumvented "lengthy debate" and controversial amendments and passed debt limit increase with "virtually no debate" and "little fanfare" by incorporating the increase into the omnibus reconciliation bill; Alternately, CONG. AND THE NATION, 240, at 55 e.g. Democratic leadership "got around" threats of budget-related amendments and lengthy deliberations by incorporating the debt-limit increase into the reconciliation bill in 1993 and that "(as) the leadership hoped, the short-term bill passed with little fanfare").

11) The debt limit statute encourages transparency, accountability & open deliberation at a time when each is in terribly short supply (Sources: Refer to above budget reform sources for more germane debt limit information, Alternately, read Federalist Paper #10 and view any additional questions you have through the lens of well-established public policy alongside the Necessary and Proper Clause).

12) (see: Obama DOJ chronically fighting FOIA filings with same Bush legal dogma Dem's eschewed) (Source: Go to ACLU.com and manually search for the countless FOIA filings that the Obama DOJ has fought on precisely the same dubious Bush "State Secret" legal theories he so vehemently eschewed as both Senator and candidate; Alternately, Google: Obama + Unprecedented War on Whistleblowers or Obama + abysmal civil liberties record or maybe get creative figure this out on your own).

13) Should the statute receive minor reforms to ameliorate functionality & protect against modern partisan polarization? Yes. (No source necessary, my opinion. However, Most - not all - but *most* who retain a thorough understanding of the enduring statutory role realize sensible policy simply requires thoughtfully amending the statute to reflect current realities while preserving the spirit, as has happened numerous times in the past. It does not require an unbalanced long-term redirection of statutory authority, a la the McConnell Rule. Actually, if someone supports extending the McConnell rule, I have just one question. Would you want George Bush to have had wielded the McConnell Rule? Yeah, didn't think so; yet, that is precisely the precedent that would set for future Presidents all the same).

14) Particularly when they vehemently speak out about the moral hazard of raising the debt ceilings as a Senator then, inter alia, attempt to abdicate Congress's statutory debt limit role to themselves as President (see: Obama wants temporary McConnell rule extended alongside my comments above) (Debt Ceiling Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp; Alternately, http://www.rollcall.com.newsobama_2006_debt_ceiling_vote_was_politically_motivated_-204986-1.html; or http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-hypocrisy.html) (McConnell Rule Source: Read the 2011 Budget Reconcilliation Act to locate McConnell rule - I *think* it's Title III, then google "Obama seeks to Extend McConnell Rule" with the understanding that the McConnell rule was never intended to be anything other than a very temporary measure. It is not practical over the long term; hence the need for minor reforms to ameliorate the debt limit statute. Also see parenthetical remarks above with Bush analogy).

15) The creditworthiness of the US is not at risk because of statutory controls encouraging principled borrowing and spending. It is at risk because the government lacks creditworthiness; It is at risk due to decades of failed fiscal and monetary policy. Statutes don't overspend, politicians do. (If you honestly require a source for any of these statements, you probably need not be asking in the first place. They are mostly self-evident to anyone with even a mild pulse on economic policy, i.e. the kind typically discussed in more detail beyond major network shows. If nothing else, did you read the latest Fed report? Does it not even remotely concern you that The Fed will now be a 90% net buyer of Treasuries. You don't have to be a doomsdayer, or even an Austrian, to understand a) the inherent risk in unprecedented expansionary policy undertakings, and b) that there is simply no part of that statement that bodes well for the near future of the Treasury market or general aggregate demand for U.S. debt. Why? Well, I suppose because our old net buyers (i.e. the ones who will not be affected by artificial scarcity) are, like credit agencies, kinda doubting the creditworthiness of the U.S. as well. My advice? All free: Go to Coursera & take some Macroeconomics classes. Devour a few decades of Fed data along with everything the non-partisan Tax Foundation has ever published. Read CBO research data not compiled exclusively for partisan purposes. Inform yourself about the possible realistic negative consequences (no, I don't mean hyperinflation) of QE1, QE2 & QE3 to Infinity. Understand these are not tried and true economic policies. They are an enormous experiment; one that, for all our sakes, I hope proves a resounding success. Only time will tell. Moving on, Standard & Poor's U.S. credit downgrade report doesn't criticize the role of the debt limit statue. It criticizes partisan infighting over the statute and the inability of government to produce a sensible medium term plan for fiscal policy, more on this below. (Source: http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563)

The rest was simply a personal observation, and I'm really not terribly concerned with your opinion of it. However, to respond to your other remarks:

1) Clearly, no, I was not wrong; nor was I offering an uninformed armchair opinion on any of the factual issues associated with the original post which, I hope you now see was every bit as factually inaccurate as I said. The subsequent remarks were also grounded in a broad swath of equally relevant facts and historical data spanning a mountain of sources, as can be evidenced above.

2) Nowhere did I say that any "of the examples [I] cited were remotely close to one party threatening the full faith and credit of the USA." Those are your words. And, frankly, they imply a terribly shortsighted perspective on several counts. Essentially, your position implies that economic precedents cannot inform or be used to gauge current economic policy or events unless the all variables remain the same. Frankly, employing this logic to the extreme, one could develop an equally illogical theory that legal precedents on, for instance, equality cannot inform current jurisprudence on equality unless all those variables remain the same. It's flawed logic. But, I have not even the tiniest hope you will recognize it as such, so I'm not going to waste more time expounding.

Secondly, you are actually wrong. The 1995 Gingrich Congress debt limit crisis was prrreetty parallel to the 2011 Republican "full monty" in 2011 and it backfired just as spectacularly. In fact, it was worse than 2011. It shut the government down. The only reason the charade did not threaten "the full faith and credit of the US" is because the government was deemed (for better or worse) to be on a sustainable fiscal path with excruciatingly stable near, mid and long term projections. That is no longer even remotely the case nor does an objective measure yield it will be the case again anytime soon (if you need sources for this, I encourage you to find them, but I can assure you this statement is as accurate/verifiable as the rest). Therefore, *again,* the creditworthiness of the US is not at risk because of long-enduring statutory controls *encouraging* principled borrowing and spending via the debt limit statute. It is at risk because the government quite demonstrably lacks creditworthiness - read the Gingrich parallel as many times as is necessary to grasp the relation to the current predicament; if still not convinced, read the Standard & Poor's report again - it explains, in exhaustive detail, why the U.S. currently lacks its former level of creditworthiness. Oh, and by the way? None of the underlying issues addressed by Standard & Poor's have been fixed; they have remained the same or worsened. And, the most important measure, i.e. bringing the debt as % of GDP below the 70% danger zone? Not even remotely possible under even the *most* optimistic fiscal policy measures currently being discussed.; if still not convinced, read about the Feds new foray into infinite monetary expansionary again. Do you really need more examples?

3) "If we lack 'credit worthiness', why do Americans and others continue to lend to us?" See, again, the above remark above the Federal Reserve being a 90% net purchaser of Treasuries (also note: I don't consider artificial scarcity to be a sound policy goal in the Treasury market; and, yes, I do understand the Fed's ostensible goal of affecting interest rates. I just don't buy it). Also, outside of primary dealers whose self-interest is implicitly tied to the Treasury market, (not to mention the insane yields regularly generated through security resales to private investors) please specify who these "others" are that are soaking up all of our debt. Do you even pay attention to the Treasury Auction recaps? If you still do not grasp why the U.S. is currently lacking in creditworthiness, after digesting these facts - not opinions - facts, then I honestly don't know what else to say.

4) "The debt limit has to do with spending that has already happened and that we are obligated to pay back." Congratulations, that is 100% accurate. Incidentally, the anachronistic conflict has absolutely nothing to do with the enduring role played by the statutory debt limit. The anachronism actually strengthens, not lessens accountability - which is exhaustively documented in several of the sources above; but most succinctly discussed in: "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases," Congressional Research Service & CONG. AND THE NATION, 1993-1996 55 Ann O'Connor eta!. eds., 1997

That's all. They rest of your remarks are not worth acknowledging. Suffice to say, I've learned my lesson about ever attempting informed discussion on an MSNBC blog. Definitely will not make the mistake again. Oh, and my regards to "honest hostility."

Trying to equate the finances of individuals with those of nations is one big reason we are having such difficulties now. When an individual needs money for a loan, a lender looks for collateral, income and expenses. Since when has any lender, such as China, asked us what collateral we are putting up in return for loans? When an individual wants to buy something, and can't find a way to afford it, either with cash or loans, he simply can't buy it. Government is under none of those restrictions, as evidenced by 2 wars paid for with borrowed money, a huge tax cut paid for with borrowed money, and a medicare drug benefit paid for with borrowed money. In cases where we are suddenly attacked, such as at Pearl Harbor, the President and Congress didn't first ask whether we had the financial resources to defend ourselves...they simply declared war and borrowed and spent immense amounts of money to do so. An individual doesn't have options like that. If an uninsured person is suddenly diagnosed with a serious ailment and needs expensive treatment like a transplant, he can't simply go and get that transplant if he can't afford it. Once again, individual finances are vastly different than those of a nation. Until the right understands that basic fact, (something which is very unlikely, based on what I see here), we will continue this pointless argument. Maybe the US should go out and find a second job to pay its bills? Works for an individual, right?

What happens to our country when the loans stop coming b/c the risk becomes too great for the lender

The United States does NOT borrow money in the same way that you or I borrow money from a bank. The US is the only entity that prints the dollar so think about this for a second: how could China loan us money? We don't use their currency, they aren't allowed to print ours, and their money has no value in our system. The way you are thinking about loans is under the assumption that China and the US use the same currency. Now one day that may be true (I personally believe we will one day move to an international monetary system if only because it would be the most friendly to multi-national corporations), but as of right now we aren't in that kind've set up.

When you say our nation has "borrowed" money what you are saying is that we issued treasury bonds and those bonds were purchased by another country and/or private entity (individuals and companies can buy treasury bonds- not just nations). The "lender" thus is the entity that purchases the bond.

When nations purchase bonds those nations do not necessarily expect to be paid back in cash (although in order to broker deals to rescind a treasury bond that takes a joint act of both the fed and the US Congress). But for all intents and purposes let's just say that everyone intends to be paid back in cash. In which case it's fundamentally important that any time the US issue a bond it pay out on the interest of that bond when the bond is due. That is where the debt ceiling comes in. Our "credit" was lowered for 2 reasons: 1) because we failed to raise the debt ceiling and/or negotiate a different payment structure for our currently held bonds at the point our annual payments came due and thus we were penalized by the private companies that we for some reason allow to make determinations about the worth of our dollar. And 2) because we are coming out of the largest recession the US has been in since the Great Depression (which means our GDP growth has stagnated).

Bonds will continued to be issued so long as the US dollar has any value to it and (at least in theory) that is dependent on whether or not the US has GDP growth. As long as the US sees economic growth the credit of the US isn't going to be deeply effected. Personally speaking I think that Wall Street has shown us that basically we will issue bonds until and unless the private sector says otherwise, but that's for an entirely different conversation.

My assumption is that we will have a lot more to worry about than our credit if we ever reach a point in time where no entity is willing to purchase US bonds. That means that we've either privatized everything into oblivion, we're no longer a world super power, or our nation has already collapsed/is in another great depression. It is not as though the problems that would lead up to a person being unwilling to purchase bonds from the US would come about suddenly or from surprise. But a lot of things would have to happen at once to make that a possibility.

At this point in time we need to not worry so much about how much debt we have until we can figure out how to balance the budget (which means end the year-to-year deficit). Once we are running a surplus then we can figure out a way to better pay off our bonds and/or re-negotiate the terms of our bonds and then worry about future states. One thing that we will have to do that no one on either side wants to talk about is address our constant recession issue. Until we figure out why we continuously have recessions on an almost decade-to-decade basis we're never going to be in a positive fiscal situation. And lastly, please remember that not all debt is bad. A nation with zero debt is a nation that cannot function and that doesn't provide any services to it's citizens. We don't want to be that kind of nation. We just don't want to have so much debt that we are unable to pay off our citizens or investors in a timely fashion.