Obama urges action on debt ceiling

The republicans will try to damage the US economy again by playing chicken with paying for what has already been approved by them to spend. But in the end they will cave in as they did on the fiscal cliff as the party is so dysfunctional now it cannot accomplish anything at all anymore. Also business interests will not let them destroy the US economy as they clearly are trying to do.

Thank God Obama won again. We would be well on our way to any bush style depression if the Romboid were elected.

"Obama... will not compromise over his insistence that Congress lift the federal debt ceiling"

Sure, lift the federal debt ceiling, we need to increase the debt beyond the $16.4 trillion it already is, lol.

The GOP is at it again with their same sad play: Bemoan spending and demand cuts but insist that the Democrats identify what they will be.

One columnist posited an interesting idea the other day: That any member from either party be allowed to present a spending-cut plan, broadcast live on C-SPAN, but on the condition that it be specific and that details be released beforehand. This would allow GOP members to make their case to the public regarding which programs they would like to sacrifice and by how much - but, of course, that is exactly what they do not wish to do. Remember how teary-eyed they got about Medicare during the election, accusing Obama of plans to cut it.

It's easy for JT right-wing posters to demand such cuts as raising the SS age and slowing its rate of growth to below that of inflation; for politicians, who must face an electorate increasingly composed of people who survive on such programs, this is an entirely different thing. Let's see if they have the courage to back up their rhetoric with a concrete plan this time. My guess is that they will not.

One columnist posited an interesting idea the other day: That any member from either party be allowed to present a spending-cut plan, broadcast live on C-SPAN, but on the condition that it be specific and that details be released beforehand. This would allow GOP members to make their case to the public regarding which programs they would like to sacrifice and by how much

You columnist needs to quite living underneath a rock. The PDF file is 99 pages of details and this Budget plan including entitlement reform has already passed the House twice.

The Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal

House Budget Committee - Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution

http://budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/

And far as it being explained on C-SPAN:

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s pick as vice presidential nominee, has nearly 400 appearances in the C-SPAN Video Library

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/blog/?p=1439

Let's see if they have the courage to back up their rhetoric with a concrete plan this time.

Ryan's plan is concrete, you of course don't like much and will decry it as just throwing Granny off the cliff but there is no denying that it is a serious plan that does address entitlements and reforming them.

The Democrats have offered ZERO details on how they will cut spending for 4 long years now.

Ah! - Ryan's PATH (Path to Prosperity)! A few disappointing facts for you, Sail.

First, Ryan's plan has already been voted on and failed - and this was in the last Congress, which was marginally more Republican than the current.

Second, the GOP is calling for some $2.7 trillion in spending cuts immediately - $1 trillion shifted entirely to domestic programs to protect the Pentagon from sequester cuts, and another $1.7 trillion as dollar-for-dollar cuts demanded as a result of raising the debt ceiling. Certainly, these demands may prove flexible, but the Ryan plan contains nothing - nada - even approaching this level. Most of its cuts do not come into play until a decade has passed, and it doesn't even pretend to balance the budget until 2050.

Third, it only pretends to balance the budget by that time. As the PATH entry on Wikipedia states:

The Path projects to achieve a spending level of 3.5% GDP for all federal government spending aside from health care and social security by 2050. In 2011, this spending level was 12.5% GDP. The Path also projects federal tax revenue to be 19% GDP, up from the 2011 level of 15.5% GDP. This had been called unrealistic because the Path calls for $4.6 trillion in tax cuts with no offsetting tax increases, other than the closing of unspecified tax loopholes. The Path assumes that unemployment will steadily drop to 2.8% by 2021. This would be the lowest annualized unemployment rate since the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), began tracking unemployment in 1948. The Path assumes that the cost of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) will not exceed inflation.

So the only concrete proposal the GOP has to stand on is something that has already failed to pass the Senate, will not come close to approaching what they demand happen immediately, and is at any rate based on overly-optimistic assumptions.

Otherwise, it should be smooth Sailing!

Laguna,

You and Tim Geithner have a lot in common in your approach in your approach to fixing our long term economic decline.

Tim Geithner to Paul Ryan: "We don't have a definitive solution... We just don't like yours"

2:54 minutes boils it all down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s29X6Wm0J1Q

Tim Geithner to Paul Ryan: "We don't have a definitive solution... We just don't like yours"

Ha ha! - Reminds me of Mitt Romney. After picking Ryan as his VP choice, he proceeded to sprint away from the PATH as quickly as possible, all the while refusing to offer specifics as to what he would replace it with.

And that was the GOP presidential candidate.

Nobody is listening to Mr Obama anymore as he was the worst president ever besides his speech!

Ha ha! - Reminds me of Mitt Romney. After picking Ryan as his VP choice, he proceeded to sprint away from the PATH as quickly as possible, all the while refusing to offer specifics as to what he would replace it with.

Agreed, Romney had a lot more in common with President Obama and his hand-picked Treasury Secretary than with Ryan on that one. Though I'm sure President Obama will get around to what spending cuts he will be proposing to deal with the out of control debt real soon for a good old honest debate and then get Secretary Geithner to do a little bit better than that lame "We don't have a definite solution" as the top dog in the U.S Finance department.

.

Hand-picked cabinet secretaries generally are, Sail, but still, that brings us full-circle. "We don't have a definite solution" is not as lame as it appears once the qualifier is accounted for. Solutions exist aplenty; the Democrats prefer those which preserve the safety net and balance tax increases combined with targeted spending matched with moderate spending cuts to encourage economic growth - and it is the growth that will balance the budget, much as it did during the Clinton years. There are a plethora of ways to get there. Could the GOP at least suggest something concrete?

Sailwind,

Japans debt to GDP ratio is over twice that of the USA and Abe plans to spend big again making that number increase. Right now it is 229% and the USA is at 102%. What you and the rest of the debt scolds do not realize is that the USA debt could go higher without making much difference. For decades the right wing economists have been warning, and the WSJ along with them, that inflation is coming and that interest rates will rise. They have not, they continue to be near all time lows. So once again the right wingers are wrong on fact. Do not bring up Greece, that economy is a rounding error compared to the USA or Japan. And they do not have their own currency.

But if you really want to see the debt reduced it will not be via the republicans as history makes crystal clear. Carter and Clinton were the only Presidents who balanced their budgets, reagan and bush busted them with tax cuts and increased government spending.

So one, the debt issue is a phony one. Ask Dick Cheney. He said that government deficits did not matter. But two, if you really do think it is important then vote democratic as that is the only way the debt will go down. It is simply beyond the capacity of the republican party to balance anything.

What you and the rest of the debt scolds do not realize is that the USA debt could go higher without making much difference.

Oh I think if it goes any higher it will make plenty of difference as to how much further we can see our credit rating downgraded then the first go round.

S&P downgrades U.S. debt

Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's says it has downgraded the United States' credit rating for the first time in the history of the ratings.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20088944.html

Solutions exist aplenty;

Could you guide me to any Wiki entries that has a Democrat sponsor like the Ryan plan that I can peruse for the details?

and it is the growth that will balance the budget, much as it did during the Clinton years.

Also Laguna since we are going to trip down memory lane. Clinton was one of the luckiest Presidents ever.

A) The economy was starting its transition from a manufacturing base to an information based economy and globalization, windows, internet, Dotcom high tech. Private capital and capital gains taxes to the U.S treasury were booming.

B) Cold war ended and Clinton was able to reap the benefits of the peace dividend, he could pare back defense budgets with no problem and he did.

C) After his shellacking in his first mid-terms he face both a Republican Majority in both houses of Congress and the Republicans in the 90's actually acted like they were Republicans instead of the Democrat lite bunch during the Bush years. They did not tolerate Clinton's worse spending impulses and they were pretty stingy with the public purse. Clinton actually declared in his 1996 State of the Union Address

We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.

The era of big government is over.

It was the combination of these three things that were the real underlying reasons that he was so successful on the economic front.

Calling Ryan's PATH a "plan" is a bit of a stretch, though, to his credit, there was enough concrete mixed in with the hopeful wishes to warrant a Wikipedia page. No Democratic plan of such a mix exists; you could look at the 2013 budget proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Or you could look at this discussion regarding Obama's long-term budget plans and how the end result differs little in terms of budget deficits from the Ryan plan but lots in terms of how America gets there:

http://www.ibtimes.com/house-democrats-release-progressive-2013-budget-counter-ryan-plan-430618

Again, to call the GOP "fiscal hawks" is a complete misnomer. If they were so opposed to deficits, they would welcome a balanced approach of tax and spending reformation to achieve it. They do not, and they do not because their goal is not to achieve a balanced budget; it is to use the excuse of revenue shortfalls to abolish the great social reforms America has built since the Great Depression. Ryan's budget is proof of this.

"new battles in Congress"

This could have been avoided if Americans hadn't voted so many Republicans into Congress, lol.

This could have been avoided if Americans hadn't voted so many Republicans into Congress, lol.

Right: LOL. Votes in the most recent election for Democratic representatives exceeded those of the GOP by over one percentage point - yet we're left with a GOP House due to gerrymandering. One study showed that it would take a 7% Democratic advantage to knock the GOP off of its self-created House perch. Worse, the members who benefit most from this system tend to be the most conservative - and, due to the "Halstert rule," it is not without a majority of this (falsified) majority that bills will be brought up for vote in the House.

So - yes: LOL.

Rep Dave Camp sounds a bit thick. Do Americans only stop spending after they have no money left and their credit cards are maxed out?! That's already too late.....!

No Democratic plan of such a mix exists;

The most important point is now being reached in our entire existence as nation on fiscal economic policy for us today and for future generations and "No Democratic plan of such a mix exists" to even set a policy out to even address it?. That truly is pathetic.

Votes in the most recent election for Democratic representatives exceeded those of the GOP by over one percentage point - yet we're left with a GOP House due to gerrymandering

This also makes zero sense and is not rooted in reality. The Democrats tossed out the Republicans in 2006 and held the House till 2010. 4 years of Democrat gerrymandering and what happened? In 2010 65 Democrats were handed their walking papers in the largest defeat in decades by an Incumbent party. Gerrymandering may save a few seats here and there for the party in power but it does not protect the Republicans or the Democrats from the voters wrath if they want to toss them out. 2010 proves that beyond a doubt.

Its obvious in 2012 the Nation is pretty content by and large with the Representatives they elected in 2010.

Obama really wants to cancel the debt limit forever so that his effort to destroy the free market economy in the U.S. will not face that roadblock in the future. With the support of the parasite class which he represents, he will likely succeed.

Laguna: Votes in the most recent election for Democratic representatives exceeded those of the GOP by over one percentage point - yet we're left with a GOP House due to gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering also leads to a more radical members of Congress since they know they will have to answer to very specific types of people who elect them.

Superlib and Laguna, please remove your blinders. BOTH Repuglicrats and Demoglicans are well-practiced at gerrymandering. It's what politicians do; they stack the deck in their favor. All the more reason I support smaller government(not federal).

As for the debt ceiling, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Obama goes for the trillion dollar platinum coin idea that morons like Paul Klugman support. The blind leading the foolish.

What a misnomer. Obama`s only idea of "action" in this issue consists of 1: more taxes and 2: more government spending.