Huge numbers of Americans ARE worthless takers. It's Obama's natural constituency. Why else do you think Democrats are the "free stuff" party?

The Republicans are standing up for fiscal responsibility. Sure, they're doing it in an irresponsible way, but what exactly are their options? Republicans may be reluctant to pay Congress's bills, but only because of the continuing Democratic fantasy that money grows on trees. (You know, all those money trees that the rich people have growing in their backyards.)

What would you do if YOUR teenager stole the family credit card and made a beeline for the mall? Now imagine they kept doing that for 4 YEARS and you'll understand what the Republicans have to deal with.

No, you'll understand what the Republicans did for EIGHT YEARS under W.

What would you do if YOUR teenager stole the family credit card and made a beeline for the mall?

That teenager was W. And it was 8 years of wars and tax cuts you didn't want to pay for.

Shooter

You are of course right, but I think it has more to do with wall street bankers and CEO's than with Democrats...Unless you count the fact that those people make Social insurance necessary

Fiscal responsibility...hmmm. Seems to me that we had this under President Clinton, back when the budget balanced and we weren't at war. The tax rates were a few percentage points higher for everyone but I didn't hear too much complaining about it - and I was in a higher income bracket back then, too! He left the country with a surplus in the Treasury. President Obama - the next Democratic president elected - found the surplus turned into a staggering deficit, not 1 but 2 wars that were financed on credit, so to speak...and that the tax rates had been slashed so that much less revenue was coming in to pay the bills we were piling up! Seems to me that the Republicans are the Party of NO Fiscal Responsibility.

please please please do some research about where our deficit and debt comes from before spouting off about this "tax and spend" president. If you can list to me more than 3 things that Obama has done to add to the deficit I would love to hear it. I'll get you started, the Stimulus, okay your turn. BTW do not say Obamacare because that actually reduces the deficit. If you look at the following chart you can clearly see where our deficit comes from and believe it or not it is NOT Obama. He has reduced the deficit by 300bn in his 4 years in office and despite the fact that we SHOULD be spending now according to almost any serious economist he continues to play the game of "how much deficit reduction" rather than asking whether we should even be trying to reduce the deficit right now.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f1.jpg

one thing I love about the people who criticize the tax and spend Obama and how spending is out of control under this administration is that they NEVER list a single program as evidence of their claim. However, those who say it was in fact Bush that caused this problem always are able to point to very specific discreet spending that Bush did. TARP, two wars, tax cuts, Medicare Part D. With Obama its the stimulus (which is no longer costing any money anyway).

Hemorrhoid itching. Idiots scratch.

Folks like Quantum State come here, post their drivel, and refuse to respond when they're met with questions about their information sources or facts that contradict what they've written.

When is it ever about being factual about Obama's record on spending?

"Huge numbers of Americans ARE worthless takers."

You mean Untermensch?

Shooter must have missed the recent report that 70% of the counties with the highest welfare went Republican. Perhaps he is wrong about whose base the "takers" are.

Really? You people are going to blame Bush? Do you all not get that Obama continued the wars, continued the tax cuts, and continued the stimulus via the payroll tax cut, green crony capitalism, and Wall St?

Does the fact that Obama has racked up more debt than Bush register? Sorry kids, but it's four years later and it's Obama that's inheriting the mess that Obama left. It's time for Obama to put on his "big boy" pants and do something constructive besides a symbolic tax hike.

Umm Shooter, apparently you're not familiar with hour our system works. President Obama has been working to end the wars and in case you missed it he ended one of them. He cannot unilaterally end Medicare Part D nor can he retroactively eliminate TARP. Yes he did extend the Bush Tax cuts but in doing so agreed to spending decreases to pay for them (something Bush did not do).

Please...I voted for dems and Obama to PROTECT ME from these destructive delusional crazies like the sexually repressed angry Lindsey Grahgam...oh my.

Republicans are proving once again that hurting the American economy and the American people is less important than pounding their chests to show they have power over everyone. Can't get rid of these goobers fast enough. They would allow Bush to put 2 wars and big pharma give away with Medicare part D plus tax cuts for the 1% on the credit card but refuse to pay for them under Obama unless he takes the much needed programs sfrom the poor and elderly to do so. How much more despicable can they get...oh yeah Sandy.

To me, the value of the platinum coin is that it's a shiny object to get the right wing nuts lathered up to their craziest heights. It's only when they go completely over the top that the Major Media show the rest of us what the crazies are really about. That's when public opinion moves. One way or another the platinum coin is happening.

My bigger concern is that President Obama has specifically ruled out the 14th Amendment strategy. Yesterday his spokesman strongly emphasized that the Congress should just do its job, to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States, as required in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Why can't Carney state that the President will also honor his obligation under the 14h Amendment? That was always a better idea to me than the platinum coin.

Oh, no . . . it will be clad in 14 karat gold, with a 3-D picture of the Twin Towers or something on the back and a certificate of authenticity -- an $80 value, yours for only $19.95!! Avoid disappointment and future regret. Call now!

We can thank the Obama tax cuts for much of the shortfall.

Shooter please list Obama's tax cuts that are not just a carryover from Bush.

Notice all the drama republicans create...about every problem or emergency or disaster. It's always them screaming and coniving keeping things from flowing evenly..always. "We don't believe in compromise" is exactly why they don't belong in a democratic legislative body. They don't want things to succeed...where's the drama in that. Rock throwers need rocks.

RAISING THE DEBT CEILING SHOULD BE AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN ROUTINE. The good faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned...period.

Oh brother, if the debt ceiling isn't raised the consequences are that Govt has to live within it's means. How horrible. The world economy will not be destroyed. OTOH the normal budgetary process has been destroyed. The House puts up a budget every year, the Senate refuses. Ergo no budgets.

Low information commentary strikes again.

Oh brother, if the debt ceiling isn't raised the consequences are that Govt has to live within it's means

You clearly have no idea what the debt ceiling is.

Shooter doesn't have a clue. He is invincibly ignorant.

My guess he is an angry old white guy who doesn't take the time to inform himself before he pops off. My dad was like that after he retired. His Archie Bunker impression was amusing, but at the same time it was sad. Shooter is the same.

Shooter, the Congress hasn't advanced a real budget since Boehner became speaker. They have passed some political statements they called a budget, but those have been political statements. The government has operated on the basis of continuing resolutions and similar parlor tricks. If the Republicans want to make serious cuts they should propose them is a serious way. It is their job to sell the Senate that they are serious, not Fox News fan boys like you.

Gosh, I thought the debt ceiling meant no more debt without authorization from Congress. As in no more borrowing/printing.

Perhaps you help me out and explain what it really is?

It's real simple. Congress has already authorized the expenditures we have incurred up to now and through the next couple of months. Got that. Congress has already authorized the expenditure of funds at least until the end of the current CR. If we hit the debt ceiling we are not going to be able to borrow the money needed to pay the bills Congress has already authorized.

The debt ceiling law is totally arbitrary. It isn't in the Constitution. Most major countries don't have a debt ceiling law. When they pass a bill authorizing an expenditure of funds they always include language authorizing the borrowing of money needed to pay that bill. This isn't rocket science Shooter. This is simple civics 101.

Sorry, but I need you to explain how this

If we hit the debt ceiling we are not going to be able to borrow the money needed to pay the bills Congress has already authorized.

is different from this?

I thought the debt ceiling meant no more debt without authorization from Congress. As in no more borrowing/printing.

Shooter, there is a myth that seems to be spread by Talk Radio and Fox News that Obama has run up the debt. He hasn't. No President has that authority. All Obama does is spend the money the Congress has authorized him to spend. The founders of our country set the government up that way.

In fact we on the left (myself included) sometimes say that Bush ran up the debt during his administration. He didn't. He ask Congress to run up the debt and they did. All Bush did was write the checks.

Of course the executive has a lot of power. He is the national soverign. He asks for what he thinks he needs. He commands the troops. He runs the parks. He manages the government's land. He manages social security, medicare etc.

BUT THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT pay a single bill that Congress hasn't authorized him to pay.

It's easy Shooter, there's a shortfall; and therefore, Obama--as the Executive in Charge of the Country--has to pay the bills as they come due. When Congress undertaxes the country and spends more than it brings in (This is a Congress problem, they have the power of the purse, therefore, they ultimately set the spending parameters) the President must borrow money. The President does not have a line-item veto, and by law he MUST (keyword, there is no equivocation) MUST buy the goods and services authorized by law. In order to do that, we have to borrow money because we are undertaxed. To not pay, is to default. It would be like you saying to your cable company that after a month of services, yeah...you're just not gonna pay that bill. Yeah, you didn't rack up anymore debt...but Congratulations, you just effed yourself in the long run. Meanwhile, you are accruing a larger deficit due to late fees, and you will STILL have to pay the bills you have accrued.

You want to cut spending, fight about it in appropriations. That's where you cut spending, not the debt ceiling. Civics 101, bro.

I see, you're quibbling about what you think I said, not what I actually did say. Meanwhile...

No President has that authority. All Obama does is spend the money the Congress has authorized for him to spend. The founders of our country set the government up that way.

All Obama does is spend money He AND the Congress authorized. Obama actually has to approve of what Congress sends him. He is an integral part of the process. That said, if Congress has a problem after their borrowing power is cut off, they can issue IOU's like California did. Easy peasy.

Sorry shooter...Only the House can spend money...not the president. He just signs the checks for the money Congress has already spent. He cannot spend any money only provide the money congress has spent already. We have always run a debt...like a mortgage...we don't pay cash for anything but the down payment so the US has to pay its bills. When congress (the House) spends more than we have the money to pay for right now then the debt ceiling is raised to make up the difference in the money we have budgeted to spend and the money available...which the president is responsible for obtaining. Only the House can change what money we spend...not the president...and refusing to raise the debt ceiling is purely a blackmail tactic that says "we are willing to destroy the good faith and credit of the US" and our economy with disastrous results for its citizens...unless you do what we want you to do...which is take money from the elderly, the poor and the middle class but not from the military or the wealthy etc...pure political grandstanding and blackmail created solely by the GOP but completely unnecessary.

You could take every penny from everyone in the US and still not pay the bills. Not a taxing problem...A spending problem. Time to pay the piper. Utopia does not and never will exist no matter how much you spend to try to give it away. The math doesn't work and never will.

The only possible option is to suffer the pain, move back to the originally established Constitutional Republic and rebuild from there.

History is the best teacher and if we continue to ignore it we will most certainly end up where others have. The constant through history is humans. We don't change, only situations do. Cause and effect. If we do this, then this will happen.

We're broke, period.

The debt ceiling argument as with most economic arguments within the government these days are merely useless words with no meaning. If we ran our households the way the government is run we would be in jail.

It's simple really. You borrow more than you can pay back and you are broke, bankrupt. This is the reality of where we are. It's purely math. No matter what the government and media say, 1+1 still equals 2. Prove that wrong.

So regardless of the debt ceiling or whatever the current contrived "crisis" is, how do we pay back the debt? Doesn't happen.

And every strawman is made of hay...

In a lot of ways your are right A.May, but the whole thing breaks down when you refuse to acknowledge that there are two sides to every budget--income and outgo. I think income is key to any family budget and to any national budget. When you have more money you can buy more stuff.

When GWB took office he gave us a couple of pay cuts so we had less ability to make payments. He replaced the lowered taxes by increasing the amount we placed on the national credit card. He then put two wars on the credit card and then the economy went in to the tank, sort of like having your hours at work reduced so we had even less money coming in. In the fiscal cliff deal we all agreed to ask for a small raise, but not nearly enough to pay off the debt we have already incurred.

Now, to take your household budget analogy to the next level, we could sell our fancy Silverado (our defense budget) and replace it with a cheaper but equally effective pickup, and save a whole lot of money, but we just gotta have that Silverado. Don't know why, but we would just gotta have that Silverado.

By the way, it isn't Obama's spending. It is Congressional (John Boehner) spending. Obama doesn't have the power to spend a dime that hasn't been approved by Congress.

One important piece you left out, Ron, was that 2008 saw a dizzying drop in economic activity when the bottom fell out of the mortgage and banking industry. Trillions of dollars in the real estate market, collateralized as 'debt obligations' and sold to unwitting buyers, suddenly weren't there.

Well, it wasn't so much that the money vanished as that the bankers (and AIG as an ancillary cohort) had pulled so much wealth out of the market and stashed it in their own bank accounts that it pretty much stopped working. People couldn't buy or sell houses, no one could borrow money, businesses were forced to downsize--and the taxes coming into Treasury slowed to a trickle because so many people had no income on which to pay taxes.

Add that to the tax cuts and two wars, ala G.W. Bush.

A little over a month ago, her on this site, I was exposed to MMT, moder Money Theory. It is an economic theory to replace the Chicago School Theory. Remember that since Economics can't do reproducible experiments where it controls the variables, it is not a true science AND can't prove its theories. The link is--

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/06/modern-money-theory-primer-on.html

One of the tenets of MMT is that it is not OK to use a family budget to illustrate a nations budget. It is not like comparing apples and oranges [which are after all both fruit], it is like comparing apples and shoes. Why?

Because, the budget items of a family budget are mostly all external to the family. The husband and wife work and earn money that comes from outside the family. Then the family members spend it on bills and to buy stuff from outside the family. Things that are done by family members for family members are not counted. The husband repairs the lawn mower, he does not get paid by the wife for that. She cooks dinner and cleans up, he does not pay her for that.

The comparison here is 'income' for the nation is only what comes in from 'overseas' and [for the family buying some stuff] it is again, buying stuff from 'overseas'. But, instead, most all of the budget items of a nation are ones that only involve people and corp. who are inside the nation. They pay taxes and get checks from the gov.

Suppose that a family that charged each other for what they do for each other. As you can see if the husband is laid off in a bad economy and the family needs to still pay the bills, it does ZERO good for them to cut all their internal transfer payments in half. Doing that saves NO MONEY that they can use to pay outsiders. Therefore any such comparison is not informative, it confuses the issue instead of explaining.

Please people, look at the linked primer. It explaines it all in simple terms, starting at the beginning. You can't compare a family's budget to a nation's budget. They are apples and shoes.

Thanks for that link, Steve. Great info there.

But for the people like A.May who may need it digested even further, let's use a simple family analogy. Congress is the dad and the Executive Branch is the mom. Dad decides what needs to be bought for the house, car, kids' education and so forth; then Mom goes out and buys those things. Pretty soon, the bills start to come in, and as she (now specifially the Treasury Department, part of the Executive Branch) balances the bank statement and looks at the credit card bills, she realizes there is more to be paid than she has in the account. She goes back to Dad and tells him that, before the bills can be paid, he'll need to raise the debt ceiling. I mean, he'll need to get a loan to put more money in the account to cover the cost of what he has already sent her out to buy.

The alternative IS NOT spending less. The alternative is DEFAULTING on one's existing debts. Please get this straight in your head. And forget what you're hearing on FOX. They're just trying to muddy the waters.

Then let the defaults begin.

Continuing to go back and ask for more because you are too stupid not to stop spending only continues to build the problem and make it worse. The brakes have to be applied somewhere by someone or the system will do it for you and it will be much worse when it happens that way. History should not be ignored or it will definitely be repeated. Situations change but humans don't.

It's called talking responsibility for your actions. Personal responsibility. Something so sorely lacking in today's supposedly "enlightened" society.

What happens when a business allows it's liabilities to build to a point where it can't pay them? Bankruptcy.

If this Country were any other business in the world, we would already be out of business because individual businesses can't create their own money.

We've got 100 years of built up insanity to pay for so it's not going to be easy on anyone but postponing it only makes it worse.

Perhaps because this way, the Republicans in the House are being shown as the ones to be blamed for not doing their jobs? I can think of no better way to keep before the voters the simple fact that should there be any, um, economic "difficulties" connected with a failure to raise the debt ceiling the fault lies at the feet of the Republicans in the House and, more specifically, the feet of Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

It's not as if the President can expect the MSM to daily inform the country of what's happening. At least not without using reporting based on "he said/he replied" interview juxtapositions or the ever popular false equivalency that "both sides do it".

Hint: Jacob Joseph "Jack" Lew signs OooOoOoo