Obama taking tough stand on fiscal cliff talks

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 3

    paulinusa

    Boehner must be smoking two packs a day.

  • 0

    paulinusa

    "Under current laws, Congress must approve raising the government’s ability to borrow. Until last year’s standoff, which resulted in a lowering of the country’s credit rating, the debt ceiling had been raised as a matter of course regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress."

    If the House Republicans can't act like adults, the responsibility of the debt ceiling should be taken away from them. The vast majority of debt was incurred years ago(and probably approved by Republicans)and so the debt ceiling is just a byproduct of past spending. But they would rather use political grandstanding to hurt the economy and get their way.

  • -3

    saidani

    Obama is using populism, not sound economics or serious debate to push his agenda, whatever that is. What it isn't is a path to economic recovery and a stable economy. Americans should prepare for its own lost decade...or two.

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    IS eye-watering GOP irresponsibility on this issue going to lead to another credit downgrade like it did the last time?

    The US lost $1.2 trillion thanks to that epic feat by the Republican leadership.

  • 4

    AKBfan

    I really hope this goes right down to the wire, even better tat the US goes over the cliff. Maybe that way the pols will learn.

  • -2

    SushiSake3

    I reckon Obama and the Dems should just slash defence by 40% and when the Repubs have multiple heart attacks, tell them to go find a lake and jump in it.

    Sometimes you have to treat children like children.

  • 0

    FullM3taL

    This is the Republican party we are talking about folks. What else did anyone expect? It's the same party that chose McCain and Romney as their presidential nominees over someone like Ron Paul for 2 elections in a row. Doesn't look like John Boehner is worried about the fiscal cliff at all. He's just using the whole thing for political point-scoring against Obama.

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    The Republican just cannot get it. More than 60% of Americans want this tax hike for the 2%.

    This is a last term for Obama whose focus is to make his own legacy while these Republicans only think about their next election. There are two clocks played here; a big clock for Obama and a small wrist watch for the Republicans.. The Republicans will drag this until the last minutes. Maybe American voters need to start circulating a petition of Accountability Act of Congress. If they cannot produce, they should be out from the office. That's how it is at work place, and they need to do the same.

    Boehner? I think he is still a Boooo-ner.

  • 4

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    First of all, the proposed cuts are not cuts, but reductions in future increases. Double-talk from the District if Criminals. The tax increases, however ARE increases, both the direct increases and the indirect ones. If the debt ceiling limit is eliminated as desired by the spendthrifts, the credit rating will begin circling the drain faster than you can say ho ho ho. Can you say "junk status"? Then, interest rates will soar and it'll reverberate globally. Poof!

  • 4

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " But hey, Moody’s, the credit rating giant, has warned "If negotiations fail to produce policies that lead to debt stabilization and ultimately reduction, then we expect to lower the US credit rating, from Aaa probably to Aa1." That would move the US credit rating from "prime" to "high grade." That means interest rates on debt would have to rise, and America is carrying $16 trillion of accumulated debt. Moody’s recently stripped France of its Aaa rating to a Aa1 downgrade."

    Yes we can! (become worse than Greece)

  • 3

    Laguna

    Heh. House Republicans taunting Obama's proposal as lacking seriousness and being a joke is pathetic but unavoidable. They have yet to put forward their own proposals because they cannot, and this is for two reasons: The numbers they have hinted at thus far do not add up (just as they didn't for Romney); and specifics required to make the numbers add up would either infuriate their base (due to the revenues required) or Americans at large (due to the draconian nature of what cuts would be required). Thus, they're playing the same silly game they did during Obama's first term: Demanding a Democratic proposal which they will then criticize while offering nothing themselves.

    Make no mistake: Obama's proposal is very, very serious. People like Herve might pretend to fret about the "confidence fairy" while ignoring that a deficit is equally a result of revenues as expenditures; that revenues are at historic lows as a percentage of GNP; that the Clinton-era tax rates certainly had no deleterious effect on the '90s economy; and, most importantly, that real people - the most marginalized, weakest members of American society - will be greatly damaged if the GOP gets its way. Balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly in the name of morality is an oxymoron.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    If the government, the Republicans and Democrats. would stop taking funds from SS and medicare then people would not have to worried about retirement. The tax cut for SS should stay put. No point in contributing more to SS funds if the government continues using those funds for other things instead of what it is suppose to be for.

  • 3

    SuperLib

    the debt ceiling had been raised as a matter of course regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress.

    Until the Republicans discovered it was a neat little gun they could put to the heads of all Americans.

  • 1

    SushiSake3

    Obama just tell Boehner, "Show me your numbers. If you want to fiddle with the tax code, hand me a list of *specific *taxes you aim to change."

    And then sit on it while the GOP behaves yet again like a bunch of schoolyard 4-year-olds.

  • 2

    Madverts

    "Until the Republicans discovered it was a neat little gun they could put to the heads of all Americans."

    Well said.

    The fiscal "cliff" was manufactured and is owned by the Republican knuckle-draggers. They'd rather pull the trigger on themselves and everyone else by jeopordizing the tentative recovery of the US economy, and possibly even chalking up another blow to the credit rating. At this point if you don't believe the GOP is now an entity actually hellbent at working against Amerian intrests (unless you're in the 1 angry old white gallionaire percent), then you need your head examining.

    Other than the eight year trainwreck that is indelibly marked by W that Republicans refuse to even acknowledge (and obviously, they didn't vote for him either), they haven't been so bullishly counter-productive since they last shot America in the foot when then house speaker Gingrich shut down the government to undermine Bill Clinton's budget....

  • 2

    SushiSake3

    Madverts - "At this point if you don't believe the GOP is now an entity actually hellbent at working against Amerian intrests (unless you're in the 1 angry old white gallionaire percent), then you need your head examining"

    This is just one more reason behind why I've been labeling the GOP and their conservative backers "anti-American" for more than a year.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    Interesting comments from NYT writer Paul Krugman -

    "The point is that when you put Republicans on the spot and demand specifics about how they’re going to make good on their posturing about spending and deficits, they come up empty. There’s no there there.

    And there never was. Republicans claim to be for much smaller government, but as a political matter they have always attacked government spending in the abstract, never coming clean with voters about the reality that big cuts in government spending can happen only if we sharply curtail very popular programs. In fact, less than a month ago the Romney/Ryan campaign was attacking Mr. Obama for, yes, cutting Medicare.

    Now Republicans find themselves boxed in. With taxes scheduled to rise on Jan. 1 in the absence of an agreement, they can’t play their usual game of just saying no to tax increases and pretending that they have a deficit reduction plan. And the president, by refusing to help them out by proposing G.O.P.-friendly spending cuts, has deprived them of political cover. If Republicans really want to slash popular programs, they will have to propose those cuts themselves.

    So while the fiscal cliff — still a bad name for the looming austerity bomb, but I guess we’re stuck with it — is a bad thing from an economic point of view, it has had at least one salutary political effect. For it has finally laid bare the con that has always been at the core of the G.O.P.’s political strategy."

    More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/krugman-the-big-budget-mumble.html

  • 1

    sailwind

    the debt ceiling had been raised as a matter of course regardless of which party controlled the White House or Congress.

    The article is nothing more then yet another biased in the tank Obama flack piece.

    The debt ceiling and Congress ability to use it as leverage to gain whatever positions either party was after at the time has been running hot and cold going on for at least 25 years now. It's not routine in the least as this article implies, and a sorry job once again by the Media in even trying to do anything called basic research. At least question the talking points the Whitehouse sends you A.P before just printing them.

    1987 NYT

    House Approves Debt Ceiling Bill to Avoid Crisis

    Passage of the debt ceiling increase has become a regular Congressional ritual where the Government teeters on the brink of a financial crisis while some members of Congress try to use the bill to advance other legislation. In 1985, the debt ceiling became the vehicle for the landmark budget balancing law.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/14/us/house-approves-debt-ceiling-bill-to-avoid-crisis.html

    Some Headlines from Google news archives during the Reagan years.

    House Turns Down Debt Limit Increase . ‎Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - May 23, 1984

    Senate Rejects Legislation Raising Nation's Debt Limit Ocala Star-Banner - ‎Oct 12, 1984‎

    Senate Snubs Reagan, Refuses To Increase Debt Limit . ‎Pittsburgh Press - Nov 1, 1983

  • 0

    yabits

    The article is nothing more then yet another biased in the tank Obama flack piece.

    Have you considered that you might be the one whose an in-the-tank flack?

  • 0

    sailwind

    Have you considered that you might be the one whose an in-the-tank flack?

    Have you considered that the article gives its reader the distinct impression that raising the debt ceiling was just some sort of check in the box thing and all of the sudden the Republicans were just being obstinate just to cause Obama grief. When that has never been the case and raising the debt ceiling has been quite contentious over the years. No matter who was the President asking for the increase an R or D.

    Oh and here are some headlines from 1953.........1953, Yabits on this very same thing. Ike was President then.

    President Defied On Debt Limit . ‎ Milwaukee Sentinel - Aug 5, 1953 WASHINGTON — In refusing to be stampeded by the President and Secretary Humphrey into raising the statu tory national debt limit by 15000 millions of ..

    Reject Ike's Request To Hike Debt Ceiling . Milwaukee Sentinel - ‎Aug 2, 1953‎ Byrd a determined foe of the ceiling boost. The committee's action indi cates that this session of Con gress can wind up quickly, po

  • 0

    yabits

    Have you considered that the article gives its reader the distinct impression that raising the debt ceiling was just some sort of check in the box thing and all of the sudden the Republicans were just being obstinate just to cause Obama grief. When that has never been the case and raising the debt ceiling has been quite contentious over the years.

    OK, you're on. You just gave an example from nearly 60 years ago and claim that the procedure has been "quite contentious" over the years.

    Cite the years since 1953 were there was genuine contention over raising the debt ceiling. In other words, back up your claim.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Interesting comments from NYT writer Paul Krugman

    They can go along with his interesting comments that he made in 2002

    To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

    Boy that housing bubble he advocated sure worked out real well for the U.S and the worlds economy.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Cite the years since 1953 were there was genuine contention over raising the debt ceiling. In other words, back up your claim.

    You do not propose a level playing field as you have not defined what you consider is a "genuine" contention. Until you define what terms you actually intend to invoke, I would recommend doing a google search. Type in Debt Ceiling go to news and then search the archives, set the parameters as far back as you wish, as you will get lots of articles from the 1950's on up and read the microfiche copies of the articles and the debates at the time and determine if they were "contentious" enough to meet your exacting yet ill-defined standards.

  • 1

    Madverts

    Sail,

    While Democrats and Republicans may have used the debt ceiling as a form of negotiating tool back in the latter part of the twentieth century, (although given birth by Republican Nixon as a "temporary measure"), there is such a huge difference in the economic misery America finds itself in today's world and the potential detriment the Republicans are choosing to inflict on their own country that I shouldn't need to explain to you how shocking and self-defeating to all Americans the GOP brinkmanship of the last two years truly has been.

    It really is "damn you election winning democrats, if the Republicans can't have our tax cuts for the rich then we're taking you all with us".

    These people do not represent the will of the people anymore. This obsession of keeping ridiculously generous tax cuts for a minuscule proportion of the population that donate heavily to Republicans should not be dictating tax cuts in the worst recession in nearly 100 years.

    I rate today's GOP with the French socialist government François Hollande believe it or not. Incompetent, and a abject refusal to get with the times. And even though the Republicans aren't actually in power like Hollande, they have the house ergo the power and the will to manufacture their fiscal cliff once again.

    I believe in both cases it is not a question of will they do any permanent damage to the country, it is sadly a question of "how much". If the fiasco Gingrich manufactured in his rather undemocratic power struggle with Bill Clinton is anything to go by, even the shock of losing badly to a sitting president with 8% unemployment a few weeks ago isn't enough to pry those knuckles free or stop the GOP taking everyone over the edge.

    The Republicans gave birth to this fiscal cliff. The Republicans took it to a new level of brinkmanship last year and lost America her prestigious AAA as a consequence. The Republicans own this particular piece of insanity, and for the life of me even I can't figure out how you're going to blame the media on this one.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " pretend to fret about the "confidence fairy" while ignoring that a deficit is equally a result of revenues as expenditures"

    Ha! Talk about a pile of malarky! Tad presumptuous and utterly mistaken in the lame-brain assumptions, pal.

    You'll note that the fiscal blame lays squarely on the criminals in DC, of both profligate parties AND the voters who elected to cast their ballots for whomever promises the better handouts. Go on in your self-deluded fantasy that either the Dems or Repubs can dig out of the hole they've together dug.

    REAL spending cuts, immediately, may make a modest difference, but even completely eliminating all discretionary spending can't eliminate the deficit($1.3 TRILLION/year currently). The ugly future will be austerity, and most will suffer from it. UNFUNDED liabilities are $220~ TRILLION. Good luck with that!

  • 1

    Laguna

    The whole debt ceiling fiasco reminds me Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles: "Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n****r gets it!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

    The budget is written, debated and passed by Congress. If they do not like the results of their own work, the answer is not to shoot themselves in the head; particularly because the hostage they hold is America at large.

    The GOP and their lackies are trying to pretend that the question is limited to excessive" non-discretionary spending" - conveniently omitting not only revenues but also defense spending, which, for some reason, is considered "non-discretionary." It seems, for example, that the Pentagon is planning to create its own intelligence service that will rival the CIA in scope. As vital domestic programs are threatened, Americans will make clear what they consider "discretionary" - their first step was their rejection of Romney and the vague promises he had made; ironic that it is the House GOP that is now embracing those very same vague promises, as if Romney had never been rejected.

    Wow. The GOP really seems intent on its own destruction. It becomes increasingly clear that the sole question is how much collateral damage they will cause.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "The whole debt ceiling fiasco reminds me Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles"

    Except he was only holding himself hostage!

  • -1

    sailwind

    I believe in both cases it is not a question of will they do any permanent damage to the country, it is sadly a question of "how much".

    I'm afraid you've got the wrong party and I'm also afraid you don't quite see who gets pretty much everything he ever wanted and would never get blamed for it. Taxing the hell out of the middle class after all to pay for the spending spree and being able to blame it on the Republicans for walking away. That's why he's proposing these ridiculous demands on the Republicans that are just complete nonsense. He gets cover for screwing over the middle class after all with a nice tax hike. And yes Madverts, Obama doesn't fear the Media at all and knows he can do this and never get called on it after all his promises to save the middle class and not raise taxes on them. Obama is not a dumb man and he knows for a fact that only raising taxes on the rich isn't going to pay for squat in the long run and is a pittance. Obama knows he needs cash and lots of it to run his big Govt spending and his 24 percent gobbling of the U.S GDP to support the big GOV machine now in place. He knows the only source to get that cash is the middle class and he's found a way to do it and pin on the Republicans after all. Actually down and dirty politics at its finest and also at its most loathsome.

    Howard Dean lets it out as to what is really going on.

    HOWARD DEAN: I make the argument that going off the -- as you call it the curb, I call it the slope, the press calls it the cliff, is actually the best deal progressive Democrats are going to get. And here's why. One, we get the Clinton tax rates on everybody. Will it cause a problem? Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful. But two, we get defense cuts. Republicans are never going to agree to that. And three, there are some human services cuts, which we're not going to like. But it's the least possible damage.

    Now what do we get in exchange? A serious down payment of the deficit. The Wall Street people, who wringing their hands of this, are really full of it because what they're going to see is a big drop on Wall Street while all the hype comes and then it's going to be roaring back because finally somebody has done something serious about the deficit.

    So, I think the fiscal curb, as you call it, is the best deal that progressive Democrats are going to get. And I think it's the best deal in the long run, not the short run

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/29/howarddeangoingofffiscalcliffthebestdealprogressivedemocratsaregoingtoget.html

  • -2

    Serrano

    "President Barack Obama is ready to cut federal spending"

    Har! His track record says otherwise.

  • 2

    zurcronium

    The whiny republicans always get it wrong. Government spending is down nationally under Obama, it was up dramatically under bush. Government debt today is mostly due to the bush recession, revenues are down, and the bush tax cuts, again revenues are down. Just more tripe from the same clueless echo bunnies. It is a fact that only democrats can balance the budget, Carter and Clinton. Reagan and the bush family busted the budgets. Obama will have the US finances settled for when Hillary takes over in 2017.

  • 1

    Madverts

    Sailwind,

    As long as you continue to think there's a media conspiracy against you and the Republican party or that you refuse to see their actions as detrimental, nay - even borderline insane to the welfare of your fellow countrymen....

    ......well, what real room do we have here for intelligent discussion?

    Nonetheless, I'll give it a try anyway. Since the GOP have no facts, figures or novel ideas of their own (well, none that submit to arithmetic anyway), I can only conclude that the "My way or suicide" situation the Republicans are willingly creating again looks to me like a re-run of the disastrous mistake Gingrich manufactured in 1995. It cost Newt his relevance, the taxpayer billions of dollars........and for what?

    But I think this is bigger since it is the party line, from a party woefully lacking a true leader since..........well, when was it?

    Sooner or later you're going to have to accept Obama isn't going to budge on making the ultra-rich pay their fair share, and who can blame him with a fresh new mandate from the American people? I still cannot comprehend your defense of this undemocratic elite. The many Americans out there finding times hard that happen not to be wearing your brand of blinkers are going to wonder if such tax revenues are a "pittance" as you state, and certainly ponder as to why the Republican party, especially after the Voodoo tax cut Economics and warmongering from Bush 2 which skyrocketed the national debt would be willing to go out of their way to put a gun to the head of 99% of the other Americans, solely if w'ere honest here, for this tiny elite of generous Republican donors to keep such outrageous privileges.

    Forget media bias, forget even George Dubya Bush. The fact that you are here once again today defending a gazzillionaire's "right" to pay much less tax than your average go-getter is a testament to how out of touch you all are. Get with the times or go the way of the Dodo my friend. And matters will be worse for the Republicans whatever the outcome of their newly manufactured crisis - there's another election soon, and you're going to have to shout a lot harder the further out there into the wilderness you go....

  • 0

    yabits

    You do not propose a level playing field as you have not defined what you consider is a "genuine" contention. Until you define what terms you actually intend to invoke

    You brought up the year 1953 -- a year when raising the ceiling encountered genuine contention. Using 1953 as the measure -- your own self-submitted standard -- what years since then has raising the debt ceiling encountered contention anywhere near what occurred then?

    Your big complaint was that the article made it appear that raising the debt ceiling was a routine thing, when you seem to know that it wasn't. Why not back up your complaint with some additional years since 1953 where the process encountered similar contention? My searching brings up nothing, making the article provisionally correct and your complaint bogus. If you knew of even one other year, you would have provided it instead of resorting to your standard shuck and jive routine.

  • 0

    sailwind

    My searching brings up nothing, making the article provisionally correct and your complaint bogus.

    Google News Archives search ( took all of 1 minute) This time during the just another "routine debt ceiling" A Democrat Senator by the name of Allen from Alabama filibustered it and Nixon was President at the time.

    Filibuster Kills Us Debt Ceiling .‎

    Milwaukee Sentinel - Dec 1, 1973 ceiling on the national debt to expire Friday as it became bogged down in a filibuster over an amendment to finance presi dential elections with tax mon . ...

  • 0

    sailwind

    The fact that you are here once again today defending a gazzillionaire's "right" to pay much less tax than your average go-getter is a testament to how out of touch you all are.

    Out of touch? The tax code in the U.S is a 7000 plus page mess. The gazzillionaire's have already gamed the system and have sheltered their money is so many tax avoidance ways to make your head spin. You yourself during the election were one of top screamers for Romney to release his tax returns to slam him for putting his money into Tax havens. Obama raising taxes on the gazzillionaire's isn't going to get squat in extra revenue. You claim that I have blinkers on when it comes to this yet you know this is a fact that the rich have sheltered their money to avoid paying taxes. It's populist clap trap class warfare that Obama is using and he's not serious about having the rich pay more in any real meaningful way. If he was he would be doing through reforming the tax code and eliminating the loopholes. The gazillions have the tax lawyers, the accountants and the clout in Congress to manipulate the tax code to their advantage. The republicans trying to limit deductions and flatten the tax code by eliminating deductions goes alot farther in getting Tax loot from the Gazillionares than Obama's way. And if you take the blinkers off for a moment that you have and look at the real situation as to how the gazillionares avoid paying taxes the republican approach is the better one to redress the situation.

  • 0

    yabits

    Dec 1, 1973 ceiling on the national debt to expire Friday as it became bogged down in a filibuster over an amendment to finance presi dential elections with tax mon

    The point of controversy was not about raising the debt ceiling. If the Dec-1973 bill to raise the debt ceiling had not contained an unrelated amendment about the financing of presidential elections, there would have been no filibuster and the bill would have passed without controversy.

    The contention has to be on raising the ceiling itself -- not on unrelated riders which are separate issues. Therefore, the article still stands as correct and your claim is without merit.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Laguna, there are a couple things we agree on. Firstly, Discretionary spending, by definition, is not mandated and should absolutely be on the chopping block. Secondly, "Defence" spending which is out of control should also be severely cut, as you noted. The tax code must be simplified. As it stands, those who can afford to pay expert tax advisors do so, staying within the law, and wisely protect their assets from the money-grubbers on Capital Hill while the middle class get reamed. But one massive area that must be pared is the big one, non-discretionary, mandated, unfunded freebies.

  • 0

    sailwind

    The contention has to be on raising the ceiling itself -- not on unrelated riders which are separate issues.

    Using that weird standard, then the Republicans blocking the recent debt ceiling for Obama was because of the unrelated seperate issue of uncontrolled Govt spending and therefore doesn't count as "contentious" enough. .

  • 0

    yabits

    Using that weird standard, then the Republicans blocking the recent debt ceiling for Obama was because of the unrelated seperate issue of uncontrolled Govt spending and therefore doesn't count as "contentious" enough.

    There's a correlation of a debt ceiling to Government spending that doesn't exist when a single senator objects to a rider concerning the funding of presidential elections. (A drop in the bucket, so to speak.)

    Suffice to say that, for many decades, raising the debt ceiling was a routine matter.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Suffice to say that, for many decades, raising the debt ceiling was a routine matter.

    Your statement is not back up by the facts or a cursory look at past news articles on the subject. Raising the debt ceiling was once even acknowledge and highlighted by the press in 1993 as anything but a routine matter as the pattern had already been established in the years prior.

    Debt Limit Debates Often Go To The Brink .‎

    Durant Daily Democrat - Apr 2, 1993 But debt limit de bates often go to the brink, ending just short of it That was the pattern when Republicans held the White House and had to ask for ...

  • 0

    yabits

    Your statement is not back up by the facts or a cursory look at past news articles on the subject.

    It is: "And that's why lifting the debt ceiling -- while often a political talking point -- has never been seriously contested: since 1980 alone, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times, in Democratic and Republican administrations."

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathanmiller/debt-ceiling-for-dummies-b907847.html

    I suppose that one person's "political talking point" is another's "push to the brink." But 39 straight times with not much more than a perfunctory whimper kind of speaks for itself.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " " But 39 straight times with not much more than a perfunctory whimper kind of speaks for itself."

    You do remember Summer 2011, do you not? And the current situation is merely a perfunctory whimper? Switch to black coffee from Kool-Aid, please.

  • 0

    sailwind

    I suppose that one person's "political talking point" is another's "push to the brink." But 39 straight times with not much more than a perfunctory whimper kind of speaks for itself.

    Thanks for the link to Mr. Miller's opinion blog piece....to errrr...bolster your case. I'm sure since his bio at Huffington Post states:

    Jonathan has waded knee-deep in the political muck from an early age, founding Students for Al Gore for President in 1988, reviving College Democrats of America in 1989, serving as a Deputy Political Director for the Clinton/Gore 1992 presidential campaign, chairing the Kentucky Democratic Party in 2007

    That his opinion it totally unbiased on the matter. I'll stick with actual factual news articles written over the decades on the issue.

  • 1

    yabits

    @Herve

    You do remember Summer 2011

    Sure, and that's why the link was dated July of that year. Debt Ceiling for Dummies. When will libertards get some basic reading skills?

    @sailwind

    I'll stick with actual factual news articles written over the decades on the issue.

    You haven't posted a single fact on any contention since 1953. Just a reference to one senator's threat of a filibuster over an unrelated rider on presidential elections, and some partial snippet from a source that there is no Google link for from some small town (Durant, Oklahoma) newspaper. Not the most honest of presentations, but thus far you haven't proven Mr. Miller or yours truly wrong.

  • 0

    sailwind

    When will libertards get some basic reading skills?

    Good question since you subsequently stated that I havent......

    You haven't posted a single fact on any contention since 1953.

    My post sailwind Dec. 03, 2012 - 07:53PM JST cites 4 from the 1980's. My post Dec. 04, 2012 - 07:46AM JST cites 1 from the 1970's My post sailwindDec. 03, 2012 - 08:17PM JST cites 2 from the 1950's

    My post sailwindDec. 03, 2012 - 08:43PM JST

    I Clearly stated going back that far in the news articles you will get microfiche copies. They can't be directly linked Yabits that is why you need to do the archive search. I clearly recommended that to you earlier.

    I would recommend doing a google search. Type in Debt Ceiling go to news and then search the archives, set the parameters as far back as you wish, as you will get lots of articles from the 1950's on up and read the microfiche copies of the articles

    Not the most honest of presentations, but thus far you haven't proven Mr. Miller or yours truly wrong.

    B.S see above.

  • 0

    yabits

    My post sailwind Dec. 03, 2012 - 07:53PM JST cites 4 from the 1980's

    Right. And the only one with a link -- the NYTimes piece -- has this, and I quote: "Passage of the debt ceiling increase has become a regular Congressional ritual..."

    You still saying there's contention over the passage? Your own link calls passage a "regular ritual." Yes, some perfunctory gestures, poses, and attempts to get other legislation passed -- but that is minimal contention as far as Washington DC is concerned.

  • 0

    yabits

    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article "House Turns Down Debt Limit Increase" appears on page 22 out of 25. The very next day, Congress approved passage of the increase without any fanfare whatsoever. (Same paper, May 25, page 2.)

    Some contention. Votes against were always poses and window-dressing. Congress always passed the debt limit increases on time. Miller proven right again, so far.

  • 0

    sailwind

    You stated earlier:

    Cite the years since 1953 were there was genuine contention over raising the debt ceiling. In other words, back up your claim.

    Refusing to define what you considered "genuine" contention. I none the less provided you a way to access a whole Google archive full of past news articles highlighting many contentious debates going back generations on raising the debt . The fact that the debt was ultimately raised each and every time does not disavow or change historical fact that the contentious debates occurred. It is obvious that you did not take the recommendation to do a google search by:

    a) Typing "debt ceiling" in a Google search b) click on the news tab c) click on search tools d) click on anytime e) click Archives

    And get flooded with results from 1953, 1959, 1963. 1973, 1967,1972 and articles titled from all over the country including Durant Oklahoma who used an A.P article at the time by the way with lead headlines such as from 1972:

    … , At Last Minute, Raises The Debt Ceiling .""industrial...‎

    Palm Beach Post - Mar 16, 1972 WASHINGTON With the national debt just about to go through the legal roof, Congress gave final approval yesterday to a billion increase in the ceiling. ... Debt Ceiling .‎ Miami News Debt Ceiling Hike Attempt Is Blocked .‎ Spokesman-Review Tax Reformists Block Debt Limit Hike...‎ Sarasota Herald-Tribune

    And that is just on page 1 of the archives.

    It is also obvious that you now have changed what you considered "contentous" into some new "Yabits only approved and re-defined standard" as to what level of "contentous" now has to be applied to be considered "contentous" enough.

    Yes, some perfunctory gestures, poses, and attempts to get other legislation passed -- but that is minimal contention as far as Washington DC is concerned.

    Basically the only thing you have proven couldn't be bothered to do any real objective research on the issue and are just mouthing your usual Democrat talking points along with Mr. Miller the proud Democrat who wrote his opinion piece to use as a counter to your lack of research.

  • 0

    yabits

    It is also obvious that you now have changed what you considered "contentous" into some new "Yabits only approved and re-defined standard" as to what level of "contentous" now has to be applied to be considered "contentous" enough.

    As your linked article called it: a "ritual" -- like a Kabuki dance -- where there was never any serious threat or contention that the ceiling would not be raised. A Congressman who voted "No" on Tuesday would turn around and vote "Yes" on Wednesday without anything substantial changed. I think most reasonable people would call that posing rather than real contention.

  • 0

    yabits

    Basically the only thing you have proven couldn't be bothered to do any real objective research on the issue and are just mouthing your usual Democrat talking points along with Mr. Miller the proud Democrat who wrote his opinion piece to use as a counter to your lack of research.

    Let us try to reason together, shall we?

    In sports, we would call someone or some team a "contender" if they actually had a reasonable chance of winning a contest. I'm not sure what the exact odds would be that separates a non-contender from a genuine contender, but I am reasoning that 100-to-1 odds against would not exactly qualify. Extending that logic to the legislation raising the debt ceiling over the years, it was very clear with each successive passage that the odds of Congress causing the nation to damage its credit rating stood at less than 1000-to-1 -- that is, until the Republican House took charge in 2010.

    I believe that the initial "No" votes on the legislation over the years were cast mainly to try to get the attention of the people to a growing bad habit with how the government spends without collecting the revenues for that spending. "Pay As You Go" was an attempt to curb that habit. Those votes, as stated before, did not really reflect how the vast majority of members of Congress would vote once the deadline came. "No" votes became "Yes" votes overnight without anything else changed. I assert that that is not contention.

    I hope some of this reasoning gets through. My country needs opposing ideas that come from clear and rational thinking and not knee-jerk responses to personal biases.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Let us try to reason together, shall we?

    Yes, lets.

    In sports, we would call someone or some team a "contender" if they actually had a reasonable chance of winning a contest. I'm not sure what the exact odds would be that separates a non-contender from a genuine contender, but I am reasoning that 100-to-1 odds against would not exactly qualify. Extending that logic to the legislation raising the debt ceiling over the years, it was very clear with each successive passage that the odds of Congress causing the nation to damage its credit rating stood at less than 1000-to-1 -- that is, until the Republican House took charge in 2010.

    The sports reasoning the way you using it is flawed and not a very good example for the point your trying to make. A better example with sports as an example would be this. In sports, there are set rules that cannot be changed or violated least penalities are invoked. There is also specific set physical boundaries, a regulation American football field was 100 yards in the 1920's and it's 100 yards today.

    Raising the debt ceiling would be akin to changing and expanding the football field every so often as needed, 5 yards here, 2 yards there over the years. There would be some over the years who would argue during the periodic addition of more yards debate that not only is it getting tougher and tougher to score a touchdown, that the fans in stands by the names of S&P and Moody are starting to not like watching the action on the field and if yardage keeps being added it will get to the point where it will become nigh impossible to get S&P and Moody to want to see the game at all as it now as it has been "downgraded" so much with a 780 yard field (also makes the players look really, really small out there in that vastness).

    Secondly your reasoning is flawed as it doesn't take into account that you just can't keep increasing the debt forever and not expect that somebody eventually is going to realize your not a good credit risk anymore to be pay it all back. The credit agencies were already sounding that alarm before the debt ceiling debate. From CNN Money:

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/06/news/economy/spratingfaq/index.htm

    Why did this happen now? S&P gave two primary reasons for downgrading U.S. debt: The nation's fiscal path and its broken political system.

    The agency has been harping on those two issues for months. S&P argues that the U.S. debt-to-GDP trajectory is unsustainable, and that the politics involved are so caustic that lawmakers are unable to make the tough choices needed to correct the problem.

    The football field finally got to long Yabits, and pinning it all on the Republicans just doesn't wash and is not reasonable.

  • 0

    yabits

    Raising the debt ceiling would be akin to changing and expanding the football field every so often as needed, 5 yards here, 2 yards there over the years.

    You have taken a completely different turn in the discussion. Your original claim was that biased reporting made it appear that the process of raising the debt ceiling was not contentious, but more of a rubber stamp, or, as one of your own links called it (refuting you): a "routine ritual." The merits of whether or not to raise it are beside that point.

    Much was then raised on the semantics of "contentiousness," which I believe I have reasonably presented: When it comes to the passing of a bill, odds can be put on the result (pass/no-pass) exactly the same way odds can be placed on the outcome of a sporting event. The more an outcome was seen as a "sure thing," contentiousness evaporates because the other alternative never had a chance.

    Since 1962, Congress raised the debt ceiling 74 straight times without a single defeat. It's like a prizefighter with 74 straight KOs by Round Four and no losses. When people like Martin and myself discuss that record, we don't consider that, back in Round Two of his 25th fight, his opponent out-pointed him. (Like some boxing matches, some bills have to go a couple of rounds for a number of reasons -- as your example of the senator who wanted to filibuster it due to something unrelated to the debt ceiling.) But as far as raising the debt ceiling went from 1962 to 2011, the outcome was as sure a bet as anything out there as soon as the bell sounded.

    It seems rather ludicrous to claim media bias when portraying that record as it truly was: 74 straight wins, with a "loss" never even a remote possibility.

  • 0

    yabits

    Your original claim was that biased reporting made it appear that the process of raising the debt ceiling was not contentious

    I should have added the following word: Your original claim was that biased reporting made it appear that, historically, the process of raising the debt ceiling was not contentious, but more of a rubber stamp.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Your original claim was that biased reporting made it appear that the process of raising the debt ceiling was not contentious, but more of a rubber stamp, or, as one of your own links called it (refuting you): a "routine ritual."

    It's only a routine ritual in the sense that they set a borrowing limit, always end up exceeding the limit they had set and have to routinely ask for the credit limit to be increased. As far as refuting me, you've asked for a reasonable discussion then proceed do quite unreasonable things as in taking one two word phrase from one article out of all that I have posted or referenced and to claim that it refutes my entire argument that debt ceiling debates in the past have been quite contentous at times. I even went to the trouble of addressing this so called type of "argument" previously by going once again into the archives and seeing a headline from that past on debt ceiling debates that said::

    Debt Limit Debates Often Go To The Brink .‎

    Durant Daily Democrat - Apr 2, 1993 But debt limit de bates often go to the brink, ending just short of it That was the pattern when Republicans held the White House and had to ask for ...

    Which you then proceeded to denigrate it because it was from a small town newspaper in Oklahoma, as if they don't receive and publish A.P news articles. And this was an A.P article, reporters name was William Mears as I recall when I viewed the microfiche. Due to the age of article I cannot directly link to it but you'll find in the news archives following the steps I'd outlined earlier do a "Debt Limit Debates Often Go To The Brink" in the news section and do the archives search.

    And this as it is unfortunate that you really do not want to research the topic or discussion as evident by this assertion:

    But as far as raising the debt ceiling went from 1962 to 2011, the outcome was as sure a bet as anything out there as soon as the bell sounded.

    It seems rather ludicrous to claim media bias when portraying that record as it truly was: 74 straight wins, with a "loss" never even a remote possibility.

    It is only evident that the ceiling was going to get raised, it was never evident as to how much or under what conditions that the raise would be granted. Archive search showed me that LBJ's requests were chopped down by about half when I was looking at the Archives, JFK had his requests ponied back also in some pretty acrimonous debates. As a matter of fact the archives are flooded with this type of reporting over the years, its actually pretty overwhelming the amount of articles on the history of raising the debt ceiling as it ran hot and cold over the years, as I had stated in my very first post. Sometimes rather routine and sometimes very contentous. A cursory look on your part would have proven that to you. The article refuses to acknowledge the actual FULL history behind raising the debt ceiling and does an excellent job of just re-enforcing Democrat talking points that all of the sudden the Republicans are just obstinate and unreasonable heathens in this. Pushing that narrative and showing their bias in their reporting that hiking up the debt has just never been a problem in the past requiring compromises and tough postitions before being granted by Congress.

    Or to make your sports analogy resemble actual reality:

    Modify:

    It's like a prizefighter with 74 straight KOs by Round Four and no losses.

    To:

    It's like a prizefighter with 74 straight KOs by some in round 1 most in round 4 a couple of real drag outs into round 12 but still with no losses.

    Factual and totally unbiased, is this really to much to ask out of media anymore?

  • 0

    yabits

    It's only a routine ritual in the sense that they set a borrowing limit, always end up exceeding the limit they had set and have to routinely ask for the credit limit to be increased.

    Not exactly. Yes, it is true that they've nearly always ended up exceeding the limit (except when the budget was in surplus during the late 1990s, or when Congress made extra allocations for it as in 1992), but we've got to be precise here: The "ritual" spoken of is the ritual of Congress often allowing the time limit on raising the ceiling go to the deadline before issuing the rubber stamp. As soon as the deadline for raising it looms, there's more often than not a strange kabuki dance that takes place as one or both parties try to attach riders to it.

    I don't know if the final round is the 8th or the 12th, but it doesn't much matter -- for 74 straight times, the bill was always passed -- and easily so, without a doubt -- before the deadline. There was never any chance of the bill's failure to pass. Not until the Republican House of 2011.

    The article -- Debt Limit Debates Often Go To The Brink -- reinforces this. Quoting from it:

    The bill itself is just a "pawn" in a larger "game" of "congressional bargaining."

    "The whole exercise suggests there is a ceiling on the national debt. There really isn't, because whenever the debt is about to hit the limit, the ceiling is raised." (Mears confirms what others like Martin and myself have been saying all along.) "Otherwise the government would default on its debts, and that would be disastrous."

    Therefore, the "Brink" spoken of in the article relates to the deadline, not to any serious contention that it won't be passed. Because until the most recent Republican-led House, steering the ship of state towards disaster simply was unthinkable.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Yabits,

    the bill was always passed -- and easily so, without a doubt -- before the deadline.

    I guess I need to remind you once again of the value of using actual historical facts in this discussion. I had already pointed out in the discussion that at one time Congress even filibustered raising the debt ceiling, hardly an "easily so, without a doubt" effort to pass it. I must admit your memory span does seems to be a little off here.

    One time raising the debt ceiling was filibustered.

    Do the google archive search with the headline "Filibuster Kills US Debt Ceiling" . Read the first sentance in the paragraph from the 1973 article.......Oh, what the heck I'll save you the trouble it starts:.

    Congress allowed the ceiling on the national debt to expire Friday as it became bogged down in a filibuster

    Your other assertion "before the deadline" is also dead wrong.

  • 0

    yabits

    that at one time Congress even filibustered raising the debt ceiling...from the 1973 article...

    This is simply not true. The subject and point of the filibuster was not about raising the debt ceiling. Repeat: the filibuster had nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling.

    Your article even says so: "Allen's [the single senator filibustering the bill] purpose was to force the Senate to drop the election reform provision, which he called 'a raid on the federal Treasury for the politicians,' and to simply pass the debt ceiling bill." Had there been no unrelated rider, the debt ceiling bill would have passed like the rubber stamp it was. The filibustering senator said so!

    The article was dated December 1, 1973 -- a Saturday. By Monday morning, December 3, Congress had passed the debt ceiling bill without any difficulty, having removed the offending rider on presidential elections. So while the technical limit had expired at midnight Friday -- the actual deadline came on Monday morning when it came time for the Fed to auction off T-Bills. Again, the issue that took the bill through the weekend had nothing to do with actually raising the debt ceiling.

    One more time to see if it gets through: If, in December of 1973, there had been no unrelated rider relating to presidential election financing, the debt ceiling bill would have passed before Friday (instead of on Monday morning) like the rubber stamp it was, and had been up until the Republican House of 2011. The assertion that raising the debt ceiling itself has been a bone of contention has not been born out by anything you have presented to this point.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Repeat: the filibuster had nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling.

    Doesn't change the fact that you asserted:

    the bill was always passed -- and easily so, without a doubt -before the deadline.

    And the filibuster did not make it "easily so" in any way shape or form. Or just a routine "rubber stamp" as you continue to assert everytime they're up for a vote.

    Again, the issue that took the bill through the weekend had nothing to do with actually raising the debt ceiling.

    Doesn't change the fact that you asserted:

    "before the deadline".

    And in 1973 it wasn't passed before the deadline you are wrong no matter what spin you used afterwards to try and make it look better for you, you are wrong. You posted it, you own it and it is flat out wrong.

  • -1

    sailwind

    The assertion that raising the debt ceiling itself has been a bone of contention has not been born out by anything you have presented to this point.

    Just for the record Yabits, In 2006 this guy had a bone of contention with it and voted against raising it. Also take note of an actual fair and balanced article on the subject in the first paragraph as opposed to your defending this A.P written tripe.

    Congress is forced to increase the debt limit every several years and it's often a political fight with members of the minority party withholding their votes to extract concessions or direct criticism at the party that controls the White House.

    That was the case in 2006 when Republican George W. Bush was president and Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, declared on the Senate floor: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. ... Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem."

    http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MHKLN01.htm

  • 0

    yabits

    Doesn't change the fact that you asserted: the bill was always passed -- and easily so, without a doubt -before the deadline.

    Yes, I asserted that. And, in December of 1973, a filibuster on a rider unrelated to the debt ceiling caused the Friday midnight deadline not to be met. So my assertion was wrong, based on that one incident. Even though the bill was passed promptly the following Monday morning.

    President Obama admits he made a mistake too, when he voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006.

    Making mistakes is quite human. But the degree of the mistake of missing one Friday deadline (with a Monday morning recovery) over many decades is minuscule compared to asserting that there had been real opposition to raising the debt ceiling itself. (Even that one miss wasn't because of the debt ceiling.)

  • -1

    sailwind

    to asserting that there had been real opposition to raising the debt ceiling itself.

    I'm asserting the then Senator Obama had some real opposition to raising the debt ceiling limit in 2006. So much so that he made an impassioned speech on why he was voting no on it. I'm basing my assertion on that. Now if you wish to discredit Mr. Obama or imply that he wasn't sincere at the time sort of well....lying, then knock yourself out.

  • 0

    yabits

    I'm asserting the then Senator Obama had some real opposition to raising the debt ceiling limit in 2006.

    His "opposition" as a senator could only be expressed as a "No" vote or as a threat to filibuster. (A filibuster, obviously, is much more "real" and serious opposition than an abstention or vote against.) The debt ceiling bills always attracted some "no" votes. But for decades there was never any threat that they would not be passed by the time the Fed opened up on Monday to sell T-Bills.

    By voting "No," on the 2006 debt ceiling bill Obama made a rookie mistake, which he fully admits. As we know, the more experienced, responsible adults on both sides of the aisle prevailed -- as they usually did, up until the Republican House of 2011.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all