Last week, House Republicans caved on the debt-ceiling fight, at least in the short term, announcing they would approve a "three-month temporary debt-limit increase." Over the holiday weekend, the GOP plan apparently got a little touch-up.
Forget about raising the federal debt limit. House Republicans are proposing to ignore it altogether -- at least until May 18.
The House plans to vote Wednesday on a measure that would leave the $16.4 trillion debt limit intact but suspend it from the time the bill passes until mid-May. The declaration that the debt ceiling "shall not apply" means that the government could continue borrowing to cover its obligations to creditors until May 18.
This approach -- novel in modern times -- would let Republicans avoid a potentially disastrous fight over the debt limit without actually voting to let the Treasury borrow more money.
This is rather unexpected. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), just a few days ago, announced plans for a three-month increase. Now, it's four months, and it's a suspension, not an increase.
What does that mean, exactly? Lawmakers are effectively declaring, "The debt ceiling won't exist until mid-May." In other words, Congress authorizes federal spending and the administration acts accordingly, but instead of needing congressional approval to borrow the difference, the White House will be able to just borrow as necessary -- without authorization -- for nearly four months without regard for legal limits.
Right-wing lawmakers will probably balk -- they weren't going to endorse the original plan, either -- but the Club for Growth said Tuesday that it will not oppose the temporary suspension of the borrowing limit. After all, Republicans aren't technically raising the debt ceiling; they're just suspending it.
Of course, this raises a related question: can't Congress just make this permanent? Shouldn't lawmakers do exactly that?
Ezra had a good piece on this, explaining that Congress is setting "a delightful precedent," showing it can "make the debt ceiling disappear."
[T]he debt ceiling is a hard, unpleasant vote that needs to be taken in good times and bad. As such, it's a hard, unpleasant vote that can go wrong at any time, simply because the politics of the vote are completely out of whack with the necessity of the vote. Republicans are admitting that when they choose to "suspend" the debt ceiling rather than raise it -- this way, no one can accuse them of raising it, even though that's exactly what they've done.
The only problem with their plan is it doesn't go far enough. We shouldn't suspend the debt ceiling for three months. We should suspend it forever, completely eliminating the threat that this hard, unpleasant, confusing vote could go wrong and unleash economic havoc.
The White House has argued, repeatedly, that shifting the authority from the legislative to the executive is the obvious, responsible thing to do. Republican leaders have balked at the suggestion -- in part because they get easily confused about what the debt ceiling is, and in part because they're under the impression that this would be doing the administration a favor.
But that's backwards. Congress hates having to vote on debt-ceiling increases, and there's no reason in the world to keep forcing them to. They could make this suspension permanent, relieve global markets, reduce economic uncertainty, and free members of Congress from both parties from having to worry about this.
As for whether the White House is on board with a temporary increase, as of today, President Obama considers it acceptable, which in turn should help ensure some Democratic votes in case GOP leaders need them.
Leave a Comment:
Mr.President Do Not Fall for their Crap ! I Think that America has had ENUFF of their little Games !
Americans want "Real Results" , like Yesterday , No more Games from the intellectually limited and financially well-off and Greedy-self-centered gop/tp !
It seems like the GOP strategy is to kick the can down the road until Democrats control the house, then they can raise the limit, so Republicans can still bitch about it.
yeah- who needs a budget?
Not according to former President of Vice Dick Cheney.
Congress voting on the debt ceiling is like a bunch of broke teen agers voting to sneak out the back door of a restaurant after consuming a 10 course meal that they don't want their parents to know they ate.
I just hope this isn't some kind of rope-a-dope strategy, whereby the amount of debt increases during the suspension (which it of course will) allowing the Republicans to scream about Obama going crazy with the credit card when they're not in control.
even if that wasn't their plan, they will catch on and use that in 3 months. And then I guarantee there will be those calling for impeachment for unauthorized borrowing.
I think there's not even a small doubt that the Republicans in the House will impeach Obama anyway, probably within six months, but certainly before the next election. The House does the impeachment, the Senate convicts, so there's not a very good chance it'll result in Obama being convicted.
The Republicans are outrageous and not above anything, no matter how unscrupulous.
Just What do you think that they are and have been attempting to set the President up for ?
The GOP is not to be trusted for a minute. That is especially true of that two faced, lying, sleazy hypocrite, Eric Cantor, whom no one should ever turn their back on. They will not rest until they find a way to bring down the president.
I hope this bill does not pass. I hope the president does not fall for this latest rope-a-dope. Surely he can see through this. He can't possibly be naive at this stage of the game.
Since this gun safety issue, I have begun to fear for his life. There are a lot of crazy gun nuts out there who'd do it in a heartbeat. They are delusional about his motives, as if Sandy Hook had nothing to do with the decision he has taken to restrict guns. The GOP is more in the NRA's pocket than anyone else. That is especially true for the House Of Representatives.
The very ones who voted down aid for victims of hurricane Sandy. These are not nice guys.
Club for Growth? Since when are they relevant to anything? How about this: I'm starting the Club for Common Sense and Logic, and as the sole member I am removing the debt ceiling altogether and removing the debt. There, done. Oh, and I'm supporting suspension of all pay for Republican Congresspersons who signed the Norquist Pledge.
Hey Dodge, I'll join and I second you! See, now we can move on to other business, next!
General Powell - found or endorse a Republican version of Organize for America with the purpose of retrieving your party from ...those people, and with two caveats, I'll send you ten bucks. I'll still vote progressive, but then Lincoln's Republican party was pretty progressive.
To get the ten bucks, your first plank will have to be vowing to actively promote universal suffrage. Your second plank; to adhere to a fact-based reality. Both should go without saying, but ...
Yes we have no bananas, we have no banana's today ...
In maybe, in May we, will have some maybes, but no we say to yes, so yes we have no bananas for monkeys in this zoo.
If Republicans think this is smart strategy, they're being just a bit too clever for themselves. When the ceiling becomes unsuspended in a few months, they'll face all the same pressure as now to either raise the limit or (far more likely) just re-suspend. And once both they and their backers have lived in a non-debt-limited world, it'll be obvious what a farce it is to bring the limit back.
By caving on the debt ceiling the first time, they revealed that it's all a bluff. Neither Obama nor any other future president will take them seriously if they ever try the same thing again. The four-month business is just the GOP going through the stages of mourning at the death of this tremendously stupid idea for giving themselves leverage.
Which raises two interesting questions. Lets say that by May, additional borrowing has taken place such that debt exceeds todays limit by $300bn. When the "suspension" ends in May, the limit will not have changed; as a result, we would be severely overlimit -- then what? Are we in immediate default? Do we need to immediately pay some down? Is there a penalty for being in violation?
Alternatively, if there is no consequence to that hypothetical, why couldn't the Administration, during the next 4 months, borrow $2 Trillion, essentially doing the same as minting platinum coins: creating enough headroom between funds available and funds committed that this issue wouldn't come up until Obama is out of office?
You beat me to it, zeitgeist; I was just wondering about both those things.
One more point in passing: By law, the president *has* to spend all appropriated funds (no "line-item veto"), for both mandatory and discretionary spending, and has to service the national debt. If income doesn't cover the bills the Treasury *has* to borrow the money or it violates the law. If borrowing requires exceeding the debt limit, then there's no possible way not to violate the law. The situation is inherently ridiculous.
This is a truly absurd situation, fraught with problems for the president if he doesn't wise up.
The GOP has not and never will give up their mission to take Obama down.
This oscillating message is keenly clear:
Republicans are more worried about being primaried from the Right in the next election cycle, than they are concerned about legislating for the good of our nation!
Yes, the Tea Partying faction of the Republican party is ready and apt to eat its own, and that is the existential danger facing our polity: the demise of the Republican party and the ensuing political vacuum it will cause! -Kevo
Boehner Must be passing around the moonshine/ever-un-clear amongst the rest of his party !
So what happens if the WH/Senate doesnt agree to gutting Medicare, Medicaid and SS by May? Does that mean the "suspension" is lifted and all the borrowing the Treasury did is now illegal because the debt limit has remained the same?
Welcome to up-is-down, in-is-out, black-is-white, day-is-night - in other words, Wacko Republican World.
Once again the majority of the House GOP demonstrates the result of 10 generations of southern "inbreeding."
Speaking of inbreeding. I once heard a hillbilly say, the closer the kin the further in.
I really do cherish the term "Southernomics"! I use it all the time now..
It's "Cousins" day at the Tunnel of Love!
I wish the entire south would secede. I know just what they could call their new country.
But I can't print it here.
they can secede but they must do it individually and they DO NOT get to take any of the land with them. self-deportation is the ONLY acceptable method of secession.
this was all settled in the 1860's. if they don't think so i'm sure that an acceptable stand-in for General William T. Sherman can be found to show them the error of their ways. again.
The Republicans keep creating needless drama and keeps their confrontational politics in the public's eye. This works to the president and Dem's advantage because the public is growing weary of their deadlines and cliffs. If they continue these tactics, it will certainly give Dems a tool for elections; the message will be Republicans are unable to govern. In addition, the business community is going to put their foot down and tell the Republicans to get to work. Uncertainty is not a good climate for business or investment. This affects the ability of companies to plan long and short term.
I think that is what the public should know (if they don't already); the Rs can't or won't govern.
There can be no pride in just planting bombs and blowing up the government.
I really can't find a solid "debt limit" in the Constitution, anyway. The Congress has control of appropriation of funds, they can borrow on our faith and credit, they must pay bills. States can't ignore contracts.
Damaging credit with threats of not paying bills is playing with fire. We need to cut spending in military and medical costs, where we have already put forth ACA and there should be less military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan already.
I agree. This is total garbage, the Rs are truly divas. The economy needs some security and the politics are disrupting everything without solving a thing. Just keeping progress from being made.
Growing economy will solve some of the deficit issues without raising taxes. They have been stifling the economy, droning on about tax cuts for higher incomes are what will drive economy. Threats about raising THOSE peoples' taxes would hurt economy, so we gotta cut Medicare.
Sandy, I swear my hair will burst into flames if the president allows the entitlements to be in the GOP's talons. That is their main motive: Undo the New Deal. They will go to any length to do that.
They want two things: Obama down and an end to the New Deal. They don't give a damn about the American people. They are impervious to criticism as the people who put them want this, too.
An end to the entitlements would destroy the country, its people, and the economy. I do not understand how they can think of doing this. It near treasonous!
Bet they don't invoke this idiocy. Establishing this precedent helps them none now, none later. Oh, guess that means they'll do it.
It's too odd that previous options were ruled out as gimicky, but that a brand-new gimick will do the trick. (Although, if the Obama Admin had put it on the table first, it's easy to imagine House GOPers rejecting it out of hand.)
Out of hand?
Its the Constitution! I know you all want to see that little piece of paper burn and all, but us with commen sense still kinda like it. The White House has no authority to raise the debt ceiling for a VERY good reason!
ok, troll. show me where i want to burn the Constitution of The United States.
every cent of the debt has been authorized and appropriated by the Congress of The United States. the President of The United States is required to spend every cent of that appropriated and authorized money.
not increasing the debt limit is refusing to allow the President of The United States to pay the bills that the Congress of The United States has run up. this is equivalent to the Congress of The United States running out of the restaurant and leaving the President of The United States alone before the check arrives. and they took his damn wallet that has the credit card in it with them.
now, how is this burning the Constitution of The United States? fugging troll, grow up!
Hell, I reckon I'll tell my utilities, mortgage, truck and other bill senders that your gonna raise my dang debt ceiling !!!!
You must be smoking some really bad crack ! Or sniffing some , YKWIS !
The idiocy of comparing the federal government to a household is amazing. The debt ceiling has to do with bills already owed, not future.
Here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI66ayr6UNk Get it?
The Constitution says we can (We did) borrow money AND we PAY what we borrow-ed.
The debt ceiling has to do with bills already owed, not future.
Sandy you are correct, but don't you think that maybe we should really try to slow down on getting future bills that we will owe? I don't agree with the "hostage - taking" the Republicans have or will try, but I also don't see a problem with an agreement to at least agree to curtail some spending at the same time they are voting to raise the ceiling. Kind of a show of good faith and acknowlegement that whatever we spend from here on will obviously result in having to raise the ceiling again in the future.
skip, Let's start with cutting the bloated, outdated defence budget. OK?
Oooops........not gonna do that!
Try to understand; this is not, for the GOP, about the deficit. It is about dismantling the New Deal and the Democrats.
India, I am for cutting the defense budget. Not sure if you thought I was not.
I am not in total agreement with your second point about the Republicans wanting to dismantle the New Deal and the Democrats. I do believe that a lot of the Republicans (being conservative) truly believe the deficit is a problem - especially the newer ones. That is how a lot of them got elected.
Skip,
The deficit is a problem. Cutting or dismantling the New Deal is not going to fix it. Unfortunately none of them will do what is necessary, such as changing our health care system entirely to the Canadian or European model, overhauling the tax code, eliminating loopholes, ending these endless wars, and getting the corporations and money out of politics.
Medicare is an extremely successful program. Social Security could easily be made more sustainable. Medicaid is essential; a sick population is a drain on the economy. Problem is they are all in the pockets of the greedy insurance companies in Washington.
We have taxation without representation. Let's fix that first. Let's have a real Tea Party. Let's start with dumping the GOP House members into Boston Harbour.
I've already stated my observing the R shills have made a concerted effort to starve the beast by running up debt and cut FDR programs they ALWAYS hated, but the people love.
That is why I do not subscribe to the both parties do it or can we now blame the current President for what has begun by design by the old time Rs as well as the new fangled kind.
Skip said he's not one of the RW and I take him at his word, but I also point out that I already tried the 3rd party route and cannot get behind "head in the sand", all are bad, diversion "happy talk only" either.
I try to converse, use facts and not give up because it's hopeless. I also try to point out that there is mind molding happening. Yes, I am biased. But I use facts, not feelings about "slippery slopes", conspiracies and hopelessness, just pull the plug or burn it all down.
So we abolish the Debt Ceiling. We run up 16 trillion a year in deficits. Have 160 Tril debt. No Problem!
Except were do you suppose all that borrowed money comes from? The sky? Pot of Gold?
Uh . . . 16 trillion a year? How do you figure? I don't think there are enough lenders to cover that kind of borrowing.
I like the sky, it seems pretty endless. The debt lies with Congress alone, they're actually paid to fix it! It seems to me that if the United States tried say, manufacturing things (in-house), we might get a handle on the real testicles of our debacle.
You can't run a country without no feet, and pretty soon there won't be no street, for dumbies to jog on or doggies to dog on, religious fanatics can make it the all-gone..
DK-You realize that was feceashous right? No, i suspect you don't. However, its no stretch that if the Liberals had the green light they could spend that easily.
Troll-Look around your house man! Its filled with Chinese goods. Simply making something in the USA does not mean it will be purchased.
But the thing that is ignored by T-Pub apologists is Bush ll was handed a budget surplus!
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
Keep banging that old drum and saying what about Obama, it makes zero sense to blame Obama, who was handed $1.4 trillion deficit, two wars and a tanked economy. Bush policies of borrow and spend like mad.
The Bush policy to keep the war spending on emergency spending, off budget, then Obama says put it on the budget. So what was the debt when Bush swore in?
I know you won't listen to that, so here is Faux link http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/07/budget-deficit-hit-record-trillion/
Debt 2000-2012 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Sandy,
Bush has been gone for over 4 years now and we still have Trillion dollar deficits. I am with you on Bush, but the blame can now go to the other side too. Blaming all the debt and current deficits on one side or the other does not fix anything. I think the debt was around $10 Trillion when Obama was swore in and it is now approaching $ 17 Trillion so we can argue about how much Bush added to the national debt and how much Obama did, but again, that will solve nothing.
And of course I will expect that any replies to my post here will blame Bush for all the debt up to today.
I am not saying there has been no further spending. I am saying Bush spent and tax cut away a surplus. The RWers never admit to that, they deflect to Obama.
He/we cannot cut too much too fast, or economy will get worse, not better.
I am for a balanced budget, but I prefer to get economy rolling first. That surplus could have and should have been used for SS bump.
Not send out checks and cut even more taxes while we entered 2 (more?) wars.
I've already stated I would like to cut military spending on contractors overseas, the wars already winding down, ACA was designed to address medical spending.
tax cut away a surplus.
Sandy, that same tax cut was just made permanent for almost everyone (except those making over 400k) and it still is not funded.
That surplus could have and should have been used for SS bump.
And of course for the past 2 years we took 2% from SS for another tax "cut". And yes, I know that that payroll tax holiday was "paid" for from the general funds which is a huge joke since the general fund is/was running on Trillion dollar deficits - so that cut was not really funded either.
My point on this is that Obama/Congress seems to be doing pretty much the same thing - tax cuts that add to the deficits/debt.
And although I do not consider myself a right winger (libertarian if anything) I will admit (for you) that Bush did exactly what you say, but the left has to admit that a lot of the same stuff is still going on and they should stop deflecting it back to Bush for everything.
Skip. Now tell everybody why Obama had to spend the way he did. Couldn't have been to help the economy could it? No, it couldn't. He could have just let it go to hell. The economy isn't still in the drink because of your do nothing GOP house now could it? Didn't think so. And please don't forget, the U.S. House spend the money. The President can't spend one dime without their approval. So I guess you might want to blame the Republicans again. They control the House.
as long as we have kids coming out of college who are willing to foot the bill. and, they basically got obama elected, so, I guess it was their choice.
Rusty,
We had a President and Congress that acted as you advocate once, after the financial crisis of 1929.
The results were 25% unemployment, mass closing of public institutions (e.g. closing of public schools across wide swaths of many states), mass evictions from homes (far higher rates than today), large homeless camps anywhere there was a hope of finding work, and childhood malnutrition significant enough to produce a generation of adults shorter than their present day children and grandchildren.
Thankfully, we did not have Treasury Secretary Rusty advising anyone this time around.
OK Larry,
First they are not my Republicans. I have not voted for too many of them lately, especially for President. Second, yes the Republicans control the House as you point out.So why don't you tell everyone how the Democrats controlled the House from 2006 through 2010 when all the economic s&^t hit the fan. So you might want to blame the Democrats for the start of all this. In my mind both parties are guilty of the mess for the past few years.
Really, #14,
If the T-party House got out of the way of Obama's every attempt to fix the economy, it would be about an employed middle class, not lowering the "job creator's" taxes. It would be about jobs, not abortion. It would be about a war on discrimination in the workplace, not a war on women.
Their agenda is anti-worker, anti-civil rights, and anti-taxes on the rich. They only thing the GOP is for is power for the white male elites.
India,
I never really understand the logic of saying the Republicans are for the rich and against the workers or middle class. Even they understand that without the middle class or more specifically workers, they would have no wealth - or any way to spend it at least, since there would be no stores or hotels or restaurants, etc to live their extravagant lifestyles. In other words who would serve the wealthy without a "worker" class?
I do agree that some of the wealthy feel more entitled and work hard at keeping their wealth, but in reality we all try to keep what we have - whatever level we are at.
Skip,#14.13
"I never really understand the logic of saying the Republicans are for the rich and against the workers or middle class."
Gosh, I dunno. Maybe your understanding is limited somehow?
Myself, I see this in everything they say and everything they do.
We can agree that their idea isn't logical and that their policies are counter-intuitive to everything we know about economics, and what keeps a country's economy strong. It clearly isn't this extreme division between the haves and have nots!
No other president but GWB has ever lowered taxes while in the midst of two wars. Presidents raise taxes to pay for wars. Even Lincoln did that. I'd say they need some education in plain old arithmetic, for openers. Then move on to economics.
Skip,
When a political party advocates balancing the budget by means of a regressive tax that hits the middle class and working poor at a higher rate than the rich and upper middle class, then that political party is 'for the rich and against workers'.
The GOP wants to reduce the current deficit by cutting entitlement programs. These programs are essentially currently in balance with the taxes that fund them. Cutting entitlement programs reduces the deficit by using the FICA and Medicare taxes to fund general government.
Taxing wages below $100k per year while exempting investment income is anti-worker and pro-rich. And that is this year's GOP.
JSE #14.15,
That payroll tax limit makes my eyes roll back into my head. It is so pro-rich. Raising that would help the deficit a lot.
...ah, gee, here comes the furry alarm clock...right onto the computer. It's after midnight.
Kitten on the keys?
xxooo, Yep. How does he know when it is midnight?
How does he know when it is 7:33 AM? He does, though.
John, are you endorsing unlimited spending? Or how much more is acceptable? Kind of funny that the solution is always to increase spending. And, your example of 1929 is funny. Most people considered Hoover to be more liberal than FDR.
Rusty,
I am advocating balancing non-entitlement spending with tax revenue outside of payroll taxes. That is where the vast majority of the deficit is.
If we, as a nation, are to beat our chests, wave the flag, and let the GOP neo-cons send other peoples kids to fight all over the Islamic world , then we have to pay income taxes sufficient to pay for our collective testosterone high.
Entitlements and payroll taxes are essentially in balance this year. Deficit reduction should focus on the real problem by cutting discretionary spending (mainly defense and homeland security, since that is where the money is) and raising income, capital gains, and corporate taxes.
Deciding how much to cut and how much to tax is why we elect Congressmen. Since the GOP does not want to cut bloat out of defense (e.g. the v-22, F-35) or raise income taxes (which hit the wealthy), Fox News has been spewing propaganda about the need to cut entitlements.
Oh yes- people who have been on this blog for long know that I've often said society ought to pick the level of entitlements, etc it wants and is willing to pay for. However- where I differ from Team Obama is that I understand the USA Tax policy is the most progressive in the world, and is getting more progressive. We will never have a sustainable system until we decide that we can't just scream out "fair" and tax a rich guy to pay for what we want.
My example- if we want everyone covered by medical insurance- then figure out the expected cost, and the total level of commerce in this country, do the division and implement a nation wide sales tax- might be 8 to 10% to pay for it. If commerce increases and health cost decrease, then adjust the tax downward (or upward, as needed). In that manner- a foriegn company trying to sell something over here would help pay our health care (unless you believe that the consumer ends up paying all taxes). Rich people spend more- thus would pay more. In this manner- it would have incentives to reduce costs.
John- Obama asked that millionaires pay more. He got that.
It would appear that they are afraid to play chicken with someone who is dead serious about calling their bluff?
Cantor thinks the President might cave in six months? I guess that was the strategy developed at the GOP retreat but seems sort of silly after we all heard the President's address yesterday.
Or perhaps business owners are now telling Republicans they are sick of this silly standoff in Congress that is impeding the credit markets and stopping them from making money and expanding their interests? Perhaps "they" are actually "demanding" that Republicans break up the log jam?
Conservatives tried and failed with Reagonomics, Bush/Cheney, and with McConnell/Cantor. They have now ignited a fire under progressives. And they woke up the Silent Majority who will no longer allow their middle class standard of living to be diminished.
Go ahead and play more games if you dare, Mr. Reince Priebus. Voters are now accustomed to waiting in long lines and jumping through hoops. We will seek out the districts that your party has gerrymandered that are still vulnerable and find Independents and others like ourselves who will wait in long lines with us in 2014.
Fourteen. That's all we need to take the House.
The growing majority of average people, not your Citizens United billionaires, religious fanatics, and bigots hold the power of the ballot box squarely within our hands again and we're not going to let go of it.
I'd like to have overheard what egregious and underhanded plans were cooked up at that GOP retreat.
Retreat from reality, I say. The usual witch doctor classes on how to fix an ailing economy, and how to poison the president's second term.
This is the same bunch of extremists who gerrymandered a 79 year old Black Democratic congressman's district while he went to see Obama be reelected. They are just full of surprises.
It's time for some Democratic surprises for 2014.
The mere fact that we are talking about a debt ceiling is an indictment of the spending problem that Obama claims we don't have. Buncha ignoramus varmits !! Can't balance a check book.High maintenance spa loving daddy's girls pretending to "represent" us, what a dang jest.
hillbilly's post translated:
"I am so butt-sore that robme lost. WAAHHHHHHHH!"
Wow! Such an intelligent retort Donna. No wonder liberals are not taken seriously.
Wrong. Obama has reduced the deficit and signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 that cut something like $1.4 trillion in spending over ten years.
We must spend, although perhaps you are one of those who thinks paying out good money for food and stuff like furniture is overspending...
@jjim
You do realize that the deficits for the past four years have been 1.412 trillion, 1.293 trillion, 1.299 trillion, and 1.326 trillion (est.)
Wrong. Obama has reduced the deficit and signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 that cut something like $1.4 trillion in spending over ten years.
Jim,
I am glad for any spending cuts, but that comes out to $140 Billion a year (over ten years) and considering we have deficits that come out to around $100 Billion a month ($1.2 Trillion annual deficit divided by 12) we really only made a slight dent on the red ink.
I think we can be happy for any dents that don't cause another crater. But that is not increasing spending. Spending has decreased already.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
I agree Sandy. Still we have had deficits over $1 Trillion for a handful of years. Maybe the deficits are for different reasons, but the fact still stands - we are adding 1,000 Billion dollars plus to the national debt each year. If that continues around that number for say, 5 more years (which I believe is a distinct possiblity) we will pass the $20 Trillion mark. Look, I think we are closer to agreeing than not, but the bottom line (financial pun intended) is for whatever reason, our deficits are still annually massive.
Billhilly re-reg can't ell us one time the President has said we don't have a spending problem or one time he hasn't said we need to cut spending. But he'll never mention the little fact that it was GWB and then his GOP controled House the spends. The President can't spend with their approval. But you'll never hear a right talk about that.
Donna, how about this one. We're so happy Obummer, the Hussein won!!!!
Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between has a spending problem. The whole country. That's why it's tough to fix.
The business community has asked for one thing - certainty - which of course we can't have. Point #1, it's hard to agree on what our budget should be.
I also wonder if Republicans are using this to to interfere with any other progress the president might make.
And who else is appalled at the story that 4 years ago, Republicans were planning their "Do Nothing" tour. Why, oh why have we let them do this? Isn't there some rule they've broken? Can they talk to my manager and get me one of these do nothing kind of jobs???
We spent money on 2 wars in the Middle East that happened because Bush #2 lied, an irresponsible tax cut for the wealthy because Bush #2 lied again, and confiscating school money that collapsed education so we can outlaw a drug that has never killed a soul, all of which cost $6 trillion. When you add in prisons and extra police we added to criminalize the Hindu faith when we adopted sharia law (i.e.: cannabis prohibition) then you get half the national debt.
"The whole country" did not spend that money.
this shows that the debt ceiling is artificial
This is a fairly shrewd political move by the GOP. They know they're in a losing position at the moment, but in four months the political landscape may change.
My guess is they're hoping Obama will burn through much of his re-election political capital on something like a protracted fight over gun control. Down the line he might be in a weaker position for a fight over the debt ceiling.
Either the debt ceiling exists, or it doesn't. This is not Schrödinger's Debt Ceiling. No deal.
Congressional Republicans, DO. YOUR. JOB.
It just seems that if the Republicans don't budge on the debt ceiling, then they are obstructionists... now they propose something that gives a little breathing space and they're "caving".
Way to promote working together...
you're right. Lurching from crisis to crisis doesn't mean they 'caved'. It means they are absolute obstructionist lying morons that do not want a 'new tax code', 'spending restraints' or any other talking point that comes out of their mouths. OK?
Aw, cut Cantor some slack. It's hard to be a lying a-hole bastard without stepping into it on occasion.
Can the US really be a global Superpower when one half of one branch of the government is so cowardly, so unable to do anything.
Yes, but the historical precedents are not encouraging.
There was once a vibrant Republic that was the economic and political powerhouse of the (known) world. This Republic was so well regarded a childless king even willed his kingdom to this Republic upon his death, for the benefit of his people.
The Republic became torn with strife between two political parties, one representing the traditional ruling class and the other championing the common man. The strife eventually paralyzed the government, turning to military commanders and strong provincial governors to get things done when the legislature could get nothing done.
After prolonged political strife and assassinations, civil wars broke out. After three bouts of civil war in about 100 years, the Republic gratefully empowered a hereditary dictatorship protected by a personal army and secret police.
The Republic was Rome. Caesar Augustus consolidated and funded his government by rounding up and executing his opponents and seizing their wealth. Rome continued to dominate the (known) world for the next 500 years.
JSE,
Funny you should mention that. I've been reading St. Augustine's City Of God. There are several paragraphs in there where he is speaking of Rome, but you'd swear he wrote it today about the T-Party, instead of around 388AD.
Is there anything new under the sun?
John, India- would Obama use drones to accomplish what you advocate?
All the retoric talk about the debt ceiling and the future of this country for our children, nonsense congress need to get off their lazy butts and focus on the now Americia, and unemployment putting people back to work, legal immigration and putting more tax dollars in the system and revoke the fair trade act and bring jobs home... STOP THE SENSELESS FIGHTING!!
Just how do the warmongers think the war machine is gonna keep going without any cash flow? But they are all for war and so what if some US troops die. They feel the same way about the people that depend on SSI Medicare Medicaid they can die and then there will be more money in the coffers. Problem solved. Also after Obama has made it much harder to rip the people on SSI ect. theres no money in it for the insurance companies. Unlike the war in Iraq where billions where stolen. Easy pickens! Drop dead Cheney.
The GOP want to cut Social Security and Medicare so they can fund the military with payroll taxes, which are taxes on workers, instead of the Federal Income Tax.
I see someone else has discovered the Republican strategy is to steal money from the poor using insurance fraud so they can bribe the wealthy with tax cuts.
Crackhead awards,
That does seem to be the plan. If they can rig the next presidential election, as they want to do, they have a chance to implement this egregious plan.