House Republicans delay vote on debt limit, spending cuts
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Syria defiantly denies killings, as U.N. council meets
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
81 Comments
Login to comment
-1
yabits
Boo-Hoo-ner can't get the votes.
His Tea-Party cohorts have manufactured a crisis to destroy the presidency, even though it takes the country down in the process.
-1
grammefriday
not just the country but potentially the whole global financial system... not that the naval gazing self absorbed republicans could care... so long as their condo dwelling, deck shoe wearing white upper class minimal tax paying, law bending supporters get their god given birthright to turn the world inot their private plaything...
-2
TumbleDry
If the squid was really threatened, it wouldn't have let the Republicans play that game. I also think that the Republicans wouldn't have made that much fuss if the president was a Republican. They also raised the debt before. At the end of this drama game, the squid will eat the chicken.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
Right. 55 million McCain voters in 08 went to the polls thinking "It's the condo-dwelling, deck shoe I got's to think about."
If you knew anything about America you'd know owning a frikkin condos is hardly proof that you are upper crust. "Deck shoes"?
0
SuperLib
So the world waits while Republicans try to decide which ideology they require for passage of a routine bill.... No more Obamacare? A balanced budget amendment? Another round of this right before an election to try to squeeze out some political gain? Who knows? They have a gun to the world's head and they can't decide the best way to abuse it....so we wait.
0
Lieberman2012
Andrew Cuomo is looking better and better as a challenger in the Dem primary.
-1
grammefriday
yes - deck shoes.... the footwear these republican voting wasps swan around in (the times they arent wearing golf shoes of course)...
-1
chewitup
It may only be a problem of semantics.
Nah. I think there are several things going on. First and foremost is that the rich and powerful who siphon off the pork are holding their stuffed suits in Congress back because they don't want to lose their pork, and that is why the original proposal with its huge cuts was refused. But also this continues because Repugnicans want to make this a 2012 issue and try to blame it all on Obama so as to take back the White House. And as the Repugnicans cannot be bothered with facts, graphs, or the truth many will actually think it is all Obama's fault, thinking the history of the run away debt started in February 2009. Then you got the fact that the tea partiers seem to be organized around a shadowy leader named General Disarray.
I think the Repugnican motto is: If I can't have it, then I will destroy it.
0
hworta269
Umm the Democrats are the ones who refused to pass a budget for 2011 last year. All this budget crap going on is squarely their fault.
1
SuperLib
This is actually about turning the debt ceiling into a political football. Republicans decided that they found a neat way to try to get legislation passed that they don't have the votes for otherwise. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself there. They still haven't decided what they want yet. We're still waiting.
Once something like this goes political it never goes back again. I'm assuming the debt ceiling will be a way for a minority in Congress to hold the rest of the US hostage while they extort demands to get the votes needed to prevent default. Not only are Republicans doing this now, but they want to include language to require another vote in the near future so they can try to extort more. They're so excited about the prospect of this new political tool that they're fighting amongst themselves trying to decide the best way to abuse it.
-1
chewitup
You don't seem to realize how much the debt has to do with not being able to agree on the budget.
Congressional Dems are by no means guiltless, as they are also empty suits controlled by rich and powerful tax sucking masters. But its pertinent to point to the bigger problems and those are the property of the Repugs.
1
Alphaape
@chewitup: I think before you go labeling it all a GOP problem and that those fat cats and rich just have their lobbyist help them siphon off the pork, you need to look at GE. GE paid no US income tax on $5billion in profits. A few days ago, GE also announced that they are closing their X-ray division in Wisconson (the state where the GOP gov. took away some of the union power) and has decided to ship it over to China, and invest $2billion in training Chinese engineers. The same GE, whose CEO Immelt is the "Jobs Czar" in the current administration.
So, it is not just the GOP rich who have lobbyist trying to gunk up the works, but the Dems are just a guilty.
1
paulinusa
"Umm the Democrats are the ones who refused to pass a budget for 2011 last year. All this budget crap going on is squarely their fault."
One thing you've got right is "budget crap". The facts are that the federal government doesn't have to balance it's budget. Hasn't happened in years. It's basically an outline for spending. But of course it hasn't stopped the right wing from endlessly repeating "800 days without a budget" to their adoring masses. Google that and see what comes up. People are so gullible.
-3
BreitbartVictorious
chewitup
Names, please. Who are these rich and powerful 'masters' ?
-3
BreitbartVictorious
Meanwhile, in the electoral arena as viewed from the conservative blogosphere , the unintended consequences of this crony kabuki have had a huge impact: Texas governor Rick Perry has blown past Bachman, Palin and Romney as the candidate of choice for 2o12, and Obama is fast losing independents.
LA Times
"New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles" July 26, 2011 | 3:04 am
Go Barry, go!
-2
chewitup
Oh really? That sounds just a tad bit like the post you quoted, where it said:
By the way, your name is Alphaape. Today is July 29th. This is JapanToday. And this is a post. Lets stick to telling eachother things we don't already know, shall we?
0
chewitup
Breitbart, do you like apples?
Here I quote BreitbartVictorious Jul. 25, 2011 - 09:07AM JST
How do you like * them* apples?
-1
globalwatcher
Kabuki play is still going on tonight. I do not think the House cannot get anything done. American voters who elected TEA PARTY are now seeing what is going on. I do hope so. They are taking whole country as a hostage.
Well, Obama has a last resorce to raise the debt ceiling under the US constitution, and he has not ruled out that option.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Obama should man up for once in his life and own the problem.
1
Laguna
Globalwatcher, that would be playing into their hands. One of their hidden motives is to so tie up Congress in this morass that nothing else can be done - to paralyze Congress while they run out the clock on Obama, through 2016 if need be. Should Obama take the 14th Amendment option, impeachment proceedings would begin at once and continue no matter what the electorate's decision next year. Remember, these people do not like government, so the next best thing to no government is really, really bad government. Look at the Bush administration for confirmation.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
More conspiracy. LOL.
0
SuperLib
Obama should own the Republicans? I don't think that's going to happen. If Boehner, Cantor, and even McCain can't get the Republicans to agree I'm not sure how Obama stepping in and "owning the problem" is going to solve anything. Granted, it would draw attention away from Republicans and their inability to even produce a vote, but -- oh, wait. Not I get it.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
Jon Stewart with a hammer and sickle, mocking Obama.
Daily Show "Armadebton 2011 - Call Congress"
1
SuperLib
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-house-vote-cancelled-20110728,0,2183479.story
Nice. Going after Pell Grants now. Republicans should be proud.
-1
SushiSake3
The GOP voted to increase the debt ceiling 7 times under bush II.
-2
SushiSake3
Boehner and his GOP never fail to fail.
-2
SushiSake3
Boehner and his GOP buddies have spent 2 years saying No to everything.
Now his own party is saying No to him.
It's hugely ironic.
0
Alphaape
@chewitup: Not sure what that comment has to do with the discussion.
So I take it then that you are fine with taxing the rich and corporations, all the while the "Jobs Czar" in the government gets to ship jobs to China and his company paid no US Income taxes last year.
-2
Alphaape
@yabits: If you are out there, I seem to remember awhile back that you and I were having a discussion about the solidarty of the Obama base and how no one would challenge him in 2010 from his own party. I think you need to go back and take a look at what we said, and realize, I may have been right on this one.
0
chewitup
Its now the middle of 2011.
-1
chewitup
I am fine with taxing everyone reasonably, and the tax cuts for the rich were not reasonable. And no I am not fine with sending jobs to China.
Discussion? Basically what you did was repeat what I already said.
0
Alphaape
@chewitup: You are correct. A typo on my part. It should have read "2012" for the Dem Party nominee.
That could be debated. What I find that brings the discussions to where they are now, members of both parties can't seem to look at each other and come up with real solutions, and stop making sound bites to deceive the public.
0
chewitup
Only if you are going to argue that paying the debt or even keeping it down is not important or necessary.
0
globalwatcher
@laguna, Obama is a kind of guy who takes risk. I personally met him. He may well play this card to execute what is the best interest for America and American people. The big problem is once the impeachment starts, nothing in Washington will be done. I just do not find any legal ground for him to be impeached, do you, laguna?
The Constitution deals with the subject of impeachment and conviction at six places.
The scope of the power is set out in Article II, Section 4:
Other provisions deal with procedures and consequences.
Article I, Section 2 states:
Similarly, Article I, Section 3, describes the Senate's role:
The same section limits the consequences of judgment in cases of impeachment:
Of lesser significance, although mentioning the subject, are: Article II, Section 2:
Article III, Section 2:
-1
globalwatcher
In US history, the congress always raise the budget ceiling 117 times until theTEA PARTY got seats in the House.This may well be the first time the government may default if nothing is done.
Well, everyone, we all may have to keep our heads down and close our eyes tomorrow when the market opens in NY.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
I'm not too worried. I see Obama's gala birthday bash / fundraiser has not been called off. He sure likes to party. If the prez has time to party, the Tea Party has time to press him.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
sushisake3 - -
Boehner has been Speaker since Jan 5 of this year. Obama had super majorities in the Senate and House till then, but was busy crafting health care reform most of us did not want, or he was playing golf.
-1
BreitbartVictorious
gloablwarcher quotes
The Gunwalker scandal seems to me grounds for impeachment of at least Eric Holder, if not his boss.
1
Laguna
Globalwatcher, not at all - particularly because any such action would immediately be referred to the Supreme Court; only if they ruled against him and he persisted would there be grounds for impeachment. The point is, though, that grounds or no grounds, the Republicans will try to impeach the President. Look at what they did to Clinton - and for the same reason: to run out the clock on his presidency.
That last-minute attempt to mollify Tea Partiers with elimination of Pell grants was an indication of things to come, though: to date, it's been all general talk about belt-tightening and living within our means and your average American has now idea what that means. This is why people like Bachmann can simultaneously claim that the debt ceiling must not be raised and that Obama is fear-mongering when he mentions the repercussions: these people have not been honest about what will happen if budget cuts the size they propose indeed go through. Combine America's love of its safety net with its growing isolationism, and I see greatly reduced military spending ahead. The puppet-masters behind all of this must be careful lest they unintentionally damage their military-industrial backers.
0
BreitbartVictorious
laguna
Said puppet masters are the same people who force Jonah Goldberg to mock the president in print?
Do tell.
0
Dennis Bauer
so they are only rasing the ceiling but are doing nothing about the debt???
-2
zurcronium
The republicans cannot even say yes to themselves. The solution they want, anarchy. And if the US government failure to fund its debts does occur, the US and World economies will be dragged this time perhaps to depression levels. The republicans did this once under Hoover and now they will try to do it again. All to protect their rich puppet masters and failed trickle down economics.
The republicans are purely the party of destruction now. They are committing treason and should be in jail for these crimes against the state.
-2
BreitbartVictorious
No they won't. But the US will, because of Obama's screwed up priorities, see a downgrade in it's credit rating.But I don't think Obama, bowing to foreign tyrants, apologizing across the globe for America's pre-eminence, is uncomfortable with that. In fact, I think he wants to see America decline.
1
Tamarama
They'd better hurry up and compromise, because they are making me awful nervous right now. I like the idea of taxing the rich more - they can afford it, and morally, it sits well with me. Also, I think, at 1.5 Trillion dollars for the 2012 financial year, the US can afford to spend less on it's Military and more on repaying it's debts. That seems responsible. The Republicans need to think less about their personal feifdoms, and more about their global responsibilities right now.
2
Alphaape
@BreitbartVictorious: I think the whole situation with Obama's "Jobs Czar" closing down a plant in WI that has been there for over 100 years and sending the jobs to China and a promise to invest $2billion over there is a bigger scandal. Yes GE is a private company, and as CEO Immelt can do as he sees fit. But to do that, and then be an advisor to the President on keeping jobs in America to me is worse than the Teapot Dome single bid contracts back in the 20's. Taking a plant that has been there and viable for 100 years, from a state whose Gov, just happens to have enacted tougher union laws, and moving it out of the country should be investigated. Not to mention, GE's media outlet (MSNBS) is saying nothing about this. Tha's a scandal, along with Gunwalker is more than what they had on Clinton in the 90's.
0
yabits
May have been right? The fact that President Obama's base may be unhappy with his tendency to constantly try to reach compromises with Republicans doesn't mean they're going to challenge him. I thought you were nuts when you initially said it and time has only reinforced that assessment.
0
yabits
The agencies have indicated that they will downgrade the US's credit rating if the Boner Bill passes, but they will not downgrade if Reid's bill is passed.
The House Republicans will push hard for a "bipartisan commission" on the debt so as to try to get Democratic cover for the terribly unpopular cuts to Social Security and Medicare proposed by the Ryan plan.
0
yabits
Sheesh, the U.S. is already paying many billions in interest on the debt -- with interest rates well below 1%.
What do you think is going to happen to the debt when failing to raise the debt ceiling -- and seriously damaging the full faith and credit of the United States -- causes interest rates to raise 3-4 percentage points?
It was only as recently as the years 2000-2001 that the Treasury Secretary warned the American people of the risks of paying down the national debt too soon, with all the budget surplus that was achieved thanks to Clinton's policies.
0
sailwind
Did it occur to anyone that the U.S actually deserves to default and have her credit rating downgraded? Our spending is out of control and there is no fiscal sanity anywhere evident in Washington. Until we learn to live with in our means we do not deserve to be able to borrow as we please or be considered a good credit risk. We have not earned our good credit rating since Obama became President and until we change course and get our spending under control and grow our economy through the hard work of the private sector to put people back to work should we bitch that our country defaulted and was downgraded as a not so good credit risk.
0
SamuraiBlue
sailwind
Would the US have the decency in paying money to other nations US owes before defaulting? After that is settled the US can do whatever they want but not before.
0
yabits
Yes, it has obviously occurred to the insane Republicans who want to hazard the ship of state without thinking through the consequences.
Spending went out of control during Bush's two terms when, backed by a Republican-led Congress, he increased discretionary federal spending to levels not seen since LBJ's Great Society programs -- and combined that with wars and deep tax cuts! That, after promising the American people in 2000 that he would hold discretionary spending to the limits set by his predecessor. Where were the Republican idiots when that was happening?
That's right, blame it all on Obama.
You are living in dream world. Time to wake up.
-1
sailwind
Yabits, Bush was a miser and a cheapskate compared to Obama's spending spree. FACT.
0
YongYang
Many small business owners depend on receipts garnered from Social Security beneficiaries and other customers that depend on government programs to allow them even basic access to our economy. Government spending adds capital into our economy where it moves quickly to spurn economic activity. Capital held by Wall Street no longer finances heavy industry to make capital improvements. Most of capital on Wall Street is stuck in the casino and used to only gamble on the price of stocks and commodities. Very little trickles down onto main street where tangible products and services are created than require employees to operate. If we changed the tax code back to before it became more profitable to invest on the Wall Street casino than a main street business then much of the capital that is held by the banksters will begin to flow in our economy once again, producing tens of millions of jobs along the way. If makes no since that a main street small business owner should ever pay higher effective tax rates than a hedge fund manager or investment banker if you really want to create jobs and attack the deficit/debt problem. THINK
0
chewitup
Could you just give us something to back that up besides your word? I am listening, but you got to do better than just type the word "fact" in caps after a sentence. Numbers, examples or links would be a real good place to start.
Personally, I might be somewhere between you and Yabits on this one. I am not going to say that Bush did no wrong on this issue, but I am certainly open to the idea that Obama has done more wrong. Just give me some proof.
0
yabits
sailwind: Wake up and learn some history.
President Obama had to enact emergency spending policies -- just as FDR did during the Great Depression and WWII -- in order to try to save a banking system, auto industry, and general economy headed towards collapse. Any sane person could see that no category of US domestic spending was rising faster than health care costs -- and so policy was desperately needed in that area too.
From a Keynesian perspective, Obama was governing as he was elected to. As a proportion of GDP, US deficits were actually higher during WWII, and everyone knows that the nation could recover from the deep debts incurred then. It's all historical fact. Just as it was a fact that Bush promised to keep discretionary spending in line with Clinton's levels. It was a clear and verifiable lie -- but lie that didn't matter to Republicans.
Their sheer craven cynicism and stupidity is amazing to behold: Over a decade ago, the water tanks were filled to capacity and surpluses of rain were forecast. The Republicans couldn't have that because it would mean that government was effective at taking care of itself fiscally as well as provide for future dry seasons, and so they cut incoming revenues and spent, spent, spent until the water supply dwindled. They then lit the house on fire and castigated the new fire chief for wanting to borrow water to put out the flames.
0
yabits
@YongYang: Great post.
Someone who gets it.
0
globalwatcher
@Breit, well, this is a typical thinking of TEA PARTY-distorted thinking. Keep driving a beat up truck with hugh tires with 10 feet pole with US and favorite football team flags. Do not forget bumper stickers that read "my kids are honor students" "choice for life" "Gun does not kill, but people do" , will ya?
0
chewitup
Of that, I have never been convinced. I did not think it was necessary when Bush did it, and I did not think it necessary when Obama did it.
I think it just belayed and possibly multiplied the pain.
-1
yabits
President Obama inherited a no-win situation and took the better of the two awful forks in the road ahead. "Better" in terms of causing less pain to ordinary Americans, especially the weakest within our society.
Here is my question to anyone who is open on this: Had President Obama chosen the road more favorable to Republicans, do you believe they would have backed him up with even a begrudging nod of approval? For a clue to the answer, go back to the Clinton years and observe how much approval the Republicans heaped on him for adopting some of their ideas. (Search term: "triangulation.")
For a more recent example, search out the origin of the proposal for government-funded end-of-life counseling that the right-wing lunatics turned into "death panels." You'll find that it was initially proposed by one of the Republican senators from Georgia. Lastly, seek and find out all the Republican politicians who publicly railed against the stimulus package while at the same time securing as much of that money for projects in their districts -- and showing up to the ribbon-cutting ceremonies on many a project.
0
chewitup
Total agreement there
That is where I am not so sure.
But given the first half of the sentence, I am not throwing accusations at Obama. But I do note that what was good enough for Bush II was not good enough for Obama, somehow, in the minds of some posters here. And while they each have different reasons, innocent and not, for me its just annoying as can be. I just wish the innocent ones would pull their heads out of their....
0
globalwatcher
Please check the record of Treasury balance sheet. 10 years ago when Bush (W) took office in Washington, was US in surplus or debt? When W left office, was US in surplus or debt?
0
Heythia
"President Obama inherited a no-win situation "
Oh really? He stated that he was going to bring the troops home. Last I checked, they're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Osama was in Pakistan. Last I check it's not that hard to bring home the troops, "pack your gears boys, we're going home." Simple. All he did was continue Bush's plan.
What exactly did he do these last 4 years? Well he passed a bill that no one wanted "obamacare." Which will cost billions to implement and billions to get rid of, so we're still in a difficult situation.
hmm, if i remembered correctly, he had both the senate and house upon arrival. Did he do anything to recover the economy? No, print more money and throw it at something until it recovers.
Don't blame all this on Bush, in my opinion all Obama did was carry out Bush's order
0
chewitup
Both. The budgets were in surplus, meaning extra money to pay the debt. But the U.S. has been in debt for a very long time, since before Roosevelt, although it was low then and skyrocketed as a result of WWII. It reached a low point under Carter, then rose hard under Reagan and Bush I. Under Clinton it went down a bit but then rose instantly as BushII took office and rose hard again as he left. It has not let up under Obama but continued to skyrocket, not that I expected him to turn it around in just two years.
The budget was in deficit, and the debt was considerably larger.
0
yabits
Heythia, the fact that troops have not been brought home as quickly as Obama promised on the campaign trail has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that he inherited a no-win situation that included two wars.
I think you may have drunk too much Republican Kool-Aid on that one. Millions of Americans wanted health care reform. Many of us were very disappointed that there was no public option. The bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office indicates will save many billions in health care costs over the next decade. I trust their numbers far more than I do partisans of either side.
To presume that any human being could have recovered a massive economy near total collapse is simply ludicrous. It took FDR and the New Deal policies well over a decade before the U.S. economy could fully recover. (Churchill claimed that FDR "saved Western civilization.") It will take any well-meaning president and a populace acting in good faith at least that long. But you don't what to hand the wheel back to the very people whose philosophy caused the wreck in the first place. (Just as they caused the previous wreck called the Great Depression.)
0
arrestpaul
Obama's personal attack against Libya, comes to mind. And the Gunwalker program. If Obama (executive branch) attempts to use the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling instead of Congress (legislative branch), the House (Republican controlled) can vote for Obama's impeachment. The Senate (Democrat controlled) doesn't have to find him guilty.
As for the current debt ceiling/overspending/deficit situation in Congress, Boehner introduced "cut, cap and balance" which had enough VOTES to pass the House. The Senate majority leader Reid refused to even allow debate on that bill.
Boehner then introduced a weaker bill which doesn't seem to have Republican support or the 216 votes needed to pass. Reid had already stated that he would table that bill as well. Reid is not interested in compromise or he would have allowed a debate and maybe a vote.
Now it's the Democrats turn to pass a bill in the Senate. Reid needs 60 votes to pass and he doesn't have that.
Obama only wants a bill that pushes this issue into 2013 and past his attempt to get re-elected in 2012.
0
Serrano
"Many of us were very disappointed that there was no public option"
Yes, incredibly, many Americans were disappointed that someone else would not pay for their health care. And I'm talking about able-bodied Americans.
0
arrestpaul
It was the manufacturing and construction boom surrounding WWII that brought the U.S. out of the depression.
0
yabits
All of it MASSIVE government spending which put millions of dollars in the hands of factory and construction workers. It was a patriotic time when even the richest Americans kicked in by buying government bonds.
Government was not financing consumer goods; on the contrary, the government dictated to plants what they could and would produce, and it was geared towards the war effort. Like I said, wake up and learn some history.
0
sailwind
Yabits,
It was MASSIVE government BUYING to win the war, US companies rose to the challenge.
-1
yabits
That statement might make sense to you. It wouldn't to the vast majority of people on the planet.
Most people will see this: The fact that the US government spent very, very heavily money it did not have. The spending was on government projects that largely would go to waste. (Thousand of planes never used and ships rusted away.)
The government projects put millions of dollars in the hands of ordinary working people -- including millions of women who entered the workplace while men were fighting overseas. (Men doing nothing productive for any economy, but still getting paid by the government.)
Confronted with that reality, and the reality of a booming economy after a government splurge of historical proportions, dishonest conservatives have to try to spin it away with complete lies and nonsense. The reason for that is if they had to admit that the effect of all that government spending nevertheless led to a booming economy, it would cast serious doubt into their whole system of beliefs. That, they cannot tolerate.
They rose to the challenge within a tax system with a 90% top marginal rate and a ratio of executive to ordinary worker salary of less than 20:1, along with a heavily unionized workforce.
All the above factors are historical fact. According to Republican/conservative doctrine, the factors should have led to unmitigated economic disaster. Instead, Americans saw the rise of a middle class unparalleled in the world, and a half-decade of prosperity.
We are seeing this complete dishonesty of Republicans playing itself out today with this debt limit fiasco. Forcing a change to the US constitution as a condition for the United States to pay its bills is complete insanity.
Again go back just a few years to the last time when Republicans tried to force a balanced budget amendment: then-Speaker Gingrich's "contract with America." It was nothing more than a political ploy designed to attract the votes of really stupid people (aka US conservatives). So, what did they do when they held the White House and both houses of Congress? Balanced budget? Hell no, they spent like crazy and directed the proceeds to the top 5%.
0
yabits
half-century....was the intended word.
0
BreitbartVictorious
LOL. Yang yong posts an article from The Nation, trying to pass off off as his own.
-1
globalwatcher
Horey, the Boehner bill finally passed the House a minute ago, and it goes to the Senate. Keep plugging.
0
bass4funk
Reid already said the bill will be D.O.A when it reaches the Senate. I do believe that loyalty to your party, especially in this dire situation is whipping a dead horse. I commend Boehner and the Conservatives for standing firm against the President, but if a deal and a compromise, even a temporary is not reached....
-1
globalwatcher
@bass4funk, would you please let me know the source, so I can read it. Thank you very much.
-1
globalwatcher
@bass4funk, I've got it. Please ignore my post above.
1
Alphaape
@YongYang: Where does the government get it's money from. Sure they can print it up, but if they kept on doing that, it's value would be worthless. By using your reasoning, instead of Obama giving the same Wall Street you are bashing te TARP and stimulus money, he should have just given every tax paying US citizen at least $200K to let them pay off what they owe and thenstart spending. That way business would still be going and everyone would have money. Then when they have spent their money, they just ask for more from the government. Just look at Greece and the situation it is in now.
0
Tamarama
The basic problem the US has is that it is an established nation state that is founded on low tax pricipals. The US is, by modern standards, a relatively lightly taxed country, with this enduring principal being sacrosanct to both major parties. That in itself is fine providing Government and it's spending remain relatively small - and this has partly contributed to the US becoming the world's most prosperous and poweful economy. The problem is, of late, the Government's spending has far outstripped the economy's ability to sustain it in it's current set up, so it has to borrow money from foreign countries to fill the gap. There are three basic solutions. The first is to increase taxes. The second is to curb the spending. The third is to combine both. But part of the fear of raising taxes is that you can then lock in that level of government spending in much the way European countries operate. The US has the ability to make these changes because the economy is not insolvent, but this political brinkmanship has to be overcome to decide on how they will achieve it. They have to compromise.
1
Alphaape
Where was Moody's and other rating companies when they were giving Bear-Sterns, Lehman, etc favorable creidt ratings when the housing boom was going? Now we are to believe that they have "scruples" and will report honestly?
Wall Street is worried that if they don't keep getting help from D.C. they will have to begin to operate as any investment company should, by actually showing what is on their books, and if what's there is not actually worth what they are claiming, then they will have to take a loss. With the previous TARP bailout, Wall Street basically was able to gamble, and not loose, since they had the backing of the US government. I say, let them fall.
We keep hearing that in economic downturns, that small business tend to get started, but right now, they don't have a chance since the big banks are not willing to take risks, even though they have access (thanks to the current Adminstration and Congress) to capital to cover any losses. TIme to drain the swamp that is D.C, from both parties.
2
BreitbartVictorious
Sad Obama. Paulie Krugman's take on the deal is called 'The President Surrenders'
July 31 NY Times
0
arrestpaul
Go to waste? Why, because the war ended and they weren't needed?
Private industry built up the US. The federal government bought the products produced by private industry. War bonds, recycling and rationing helped get them thru a very terrible time in history. 12 million men and a few women were in military service in 1945 and not in the general, private, workforce. Only 35% of the US were in unions.
People with jobs bought products from other people with sales jobs made by people with manufactuing jobs. Jobless people don't purchase consumer goods.
The US Congress has had a spending addiction for decades. Automatically raising the debt limit simply because Congress wants to spend more is ludicris. There is more than enough money coming in now. Congress simply needs to realize that they have to stop spending money they don't have for things they don't need. Borrowing more money to pay interest on the money they already borrowed is a very poor fiscal policy.
Back to top