House Speaker John Boehner revived Republicans’ insistence that any increase in the nation’s debt limit be matched by at least as much in spending cuts, positioning his party for a renewed standoff with Democrats over the federal budget.
“Allowing the debt ceiling to go up without addressing our fiscal challenge would be the most irresponsible thing that I could do,” Boehner said in a speech yesterday before a conference in Washington sponsored by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.
Here we go again. Am I the only one missing the irony here that they're threatening this again while simultaneously trying to wrangle their way out of the automatic cuts tied to the last debt ceiling fight? Will Obama cave again and accept this nonsensical narrative?
I say he should let them take the fall like Clinton did with Newt.
Yeah, the Democrats need to say "here's the clean bill. This is what we're passing. You guys can vote against it if you want, but you're going to be the ones responsible." This is an ideal time to hold their feet to the fire.
Wow, who could have ever seen this coming after it worked so well for them the last time? I'm sure we're all utterly shocked they're trying this again.
Eventually, you're going to have to tell them to get fucked. Just do it now nd get it over with.
I thought the ceiling would be bumped some time after elections. If not, couldn't discretionary spending be "massaged" so it happens some time after November 6th?
Octoparrot on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I thought we extended the ceiling through to next year last time?
Oh well.
A clean debt ceiling rise needs to be done, and I don't think we'll see Obama play softball anymore.
If he wants to stop letting the GOP get the benefit of the doubt about the economy he'll hammer this issue over and over.
We were downgraded because of the Tea Party, not because of our debt. This is a fact. Our debt is at negative interest, it is not a problem.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
It's pretty much the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. Potential downgrade could raise the interest on the debt essentially costing us tons of money for no damn reason.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
It's pretty much the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. Potential downgrade could raise the interest on the debt essentially costing us tons of money for no damn reason.
That is what the republicans want. If they can get us downgraded, then it will start damaging the US economy and damage Obama at the polls.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
That's what I thought, the president had to give the teapers the super committee and sequestration to get the bill past the election so that specifically THIS wouldn't happen.
It's pretty much the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. Potential downgrade could raise the interest on the debt essentially costing us tons of money for no damn reason.
That is what the republicans want. If they can get us downgraded, then it will start damaging the US economy and damage Obama at the polls.
Partly why partisan ship is bad. They're not doing it because they want or don't want certain things. They're doing it to damage reputation of their opponent so they have a better chance to win.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Wow, who could have ever seen this coming after it worked so well for them the last time? I'm sure we're all utterly shocked they're trying this again.
Eventually, you're going to have to tell them to get fucked. Just do it now nd get it over with.
The United States should stop negotiating with terrorists.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Is this the thread where we can have a serious, non-hyperbolic discussion about the very real looming sovereign debt mess we're headed for?
I don't know how non-hyperbolic a PA discussion will remain all the times, but I'd like to have this conversation in good faith with someone besides my laptop while I'm watching CSPAN.
If there were one, sure. But there is no real prospect of people refusing to lend money to the federal government, and that's the only possible issue I can think of.
If there were one, sure. But there is no real prospect of people refusing to lend money to the federal government, and that's the only possible issue I can think of.
There was also "no real prospect" of housing values ever going down, according to conventional wisdom before 2008.
Building a federal budget on the assumption that we'll always be able to get cheap money on the international market is a dangerous idea, imho. Healthcare costs are rising 10% a year, and Obamacare didn't really address the main factors creating that rise: more people are getting old and using healthcare, and our current fee-for-service model is proving incapable of regulating its own costs. Healthcare spending is one of the largest drains on the federal budget, as shown in the graph below:
Eventually, we're gonna have to deal with this (in a non-compromised wash of a bill).
I love it how congressional Republicans have no problem holding hostage the economic future of my country for the sake of pork and massive spending cuts to social programs that disproportionately benefit minorities.
It is literally systemic racism.
Would any of you be offended by that, or object to that? Does it seem too race-cardey? It is my read on the situation, though.
"If you don't stop helping all these black people, we will destroy the world economy."
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It is true that if we do absolutely nothing, ten, twenty years down the road we could be in a worse place. But right now we're not and because of people with deficit blinders on, we haven't been able to get out of the recession in real terms.
If we raised taxes back to where they need to be and once the economy picked up started dealing with the overblown "structural" problems with out government, we'd have no problem.
If we raised taxes back to where they need to be and once the economy picked up started dealing with the overblown "structural" problems with out government, we'd have no problem.
Listen, I'm as much a Keynesian as anyone -- so Keynesian in fact that I think we should either nationalize or massively reform the healthcare sector to deal with its out-of-control costs.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If we raised taxes back to where they need to be and once the economy picked up started dealing with the overblown "structural" problems with out government, we'd have no problem.
I just graduated and became a 2nd Lt. I've been scrambling for a job since February because I got the bad news that even though I'm an engineer going into a field in shortage, the budget is so bad that I and half of my graduating buddies have to sit around and wait for Active Duty to start for up to a year. And I'm supposed to find an employer who can work with me knowing that at any time they could call me to drop anything I'm doing go to Active Duty. Apparently I'm lucky because my buddy in the Army says they have to wait two years.
3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Listen, I'm as much a Keynesian as anyone -- so Keynesian in fact that I think we should either nationalize or massively reform the healthcare sector to deal with its out-of-control costs.
What a lot of people forget about Keynesian economics is that it calls for spending cuts during times of economic booms. This both helps combat any issues with an overheating economy (unsustainably low unemployment) and the surplus is used to pay down debt. With treasury yields as low as they are now, I am more than comfortable waiting until we are firmly in our next boom cycle to begin that discussion.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I love it how congressional Republicans have no problem holding hostage the economic future of my country for the sake of pork and massive spending cuts to social programs that disproportionately benefit minorities.
It is literally systemic racism.
Would any of you be offended by that, or object to that? Does it seem too race-cardey? It is my read on the situation, though.
"If you don't stop helping all these black people, we will destroy the world economy."
It's systemic racism, but it isn't actual racism. I don't see any evidence that most of the Republicans hate black people, they just want to keep their money to themselves.
As long as we can make the distinction, I'm fine with using the term. But be prepared for someone to whirlwind in here and start ranting about teh 'cisms
Listen, I'm as much a Keynesian as anyone -- so Keynesian in fact that I think we should either nationalize or massively reform the healthcare sector to deal with its out-of-control costs.
What a lot of people forget about Keynesian economics is that it calls for spending cuts during times of economic booms. This both helps combat any issues with an overheating economy (unsustainably low unemployment) and the surplus is used to pay down debt. With treasury yields as low as they are now, I am more than comfortable waiting until we are firmly in our next boom cycle to begin that discussion.
This.
Which is why a large amount of the recent focus on our "looming debt crisis", especially from those folks who are advocating radical austerity programs aimed at the poor as a way to solve this so-called crisis, is far less about actually dealing with the federal debt responsibly and more about ginning up a panic to roll back the Great Society and New Deal even further.
Listen, I'm as much a Keynesian as anyone -- so Keynesian in fact that I think we should either nationalize or massively reform the healthcare sector to deal with its out-of-control costs.
What a lot of people forget about Keynesian economics is that it calls for spending cuts during times of economic booms. This both helps combat any issues with an overheating economy (unsustainably low unemployment) and the surplus is used to pay down debt. With treasury yields as low as they are now, I am more than comfortable waiting until we are firmly in our next boom cycle to begin that discussion.
Right, fiscal policy (I don't remember what Keynes said about monetary policy) should countervail the direction of the market. So government spending should be up during times of recession (to combat the lack of private firm spending and investment) and down during boom periods (to prevent an economy from overheating).
Listen, I'm as much a Keynesian as anyone -- so Keynesian in fact that I think we should either nationalize or massively reform the healthcare sector to deal with its out-of-control costs.
Eh, I suspect the same thing that happened to the housing market will happen with health care, the bubble will eventually have to burst.
I knew Defense was a lot but when you put in a pie chart like that it's kind of ridiculous.
What bothers me more is that medicaid dwarfs even defense spending. I'm all for chasing after the debt, but I'm not going to take anyone serious about it until they address the huge elephants in the room like medicaid and defense spending. But no, we can't go after that, we've got bigger fish to fry first, like chasing after GOP pet annoyances like Planned Parenthood and NPR.
I love it how congressional Republicans have no problem holding hostage the economic future of my country for the sake of pork and massive spending cuts to social programs that disproportionately benefit minorities.
It is literally systemic racism.
Would any of you be offended by that, or object to that? Does it seem too race-cardey? It is my read on the situation, though.
"If you don't stop helping all these black people, we will destroy the world economy."
It's systemic racism, but it isn't actual racism. I don't see any evidence that most of the Republicans hate black people, they just want to keep their money to themselves.
As long as we can make the distinction, I'm fine with using the term. But be prepared for someone to whirlwind in here and start ranting about teh 'cisms
Posts
Round these assholes up and put them in trains headed somewhere far away.
We got fucking DOWNGRADED* the last time they played this game, and they want to do it again?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Eventually, you're going to have to tell them to get fucked. Just do it now nd get it over with.
Oh well.
A clean debt ceiling rise needs to be done, and I don't think we'll see Obama play softball anymore.
If he wants to stop letting the GOP get the benefit of the doubt about the economy he'll hammer this issue over and over.
We were downgraded because of the Tea Party, not because of our debt. This is a fact. Our debt is at negative interest, it is not a problem.
I know. We were downgraded because of the game that they played. The shit that they pulled.
Shit they are pulling again.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Tea Party 2: Die Harder
I hate so much about the things they choose to be.
True.
Ehhh...no one is really paying all that much attention to our sovereign rating. Everyone knows the debt ceiling is going to be raised.
That is what the republicans want. If they can get us downgraded, then it will start damaging the US economy and damage Obama at the polls.
The bond market will probably respond. Not so much to any rating downgrade as to the actual crazy though
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/john-boehner-tim-geithner-debt-limit.php
That's what I thought, the president had to give the teapers the super committee and sequestration to get the bill past the election so that specifically THIS wouldn't happen.
Partly why partisan ship is bad. They're not doing it because they want or don't want certain things. They're doing it to damage reputation of their opponent so they have a better chance to win.
The United States should stop negotiating with terrorists.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
But dude, free market! all we need to do is put our healthcare plans into the market!
Really? Do we really know of anything the Tea Party absolutely will not do in the name of trying to damage Obama?
LMAO, The Go-bots of rating agencies. That is fucking hilarious.
I don't know how non-hyperbolic a PA discussion will remain all the times, but I'd like to have this conversation in good faith with someone besides my laptop while I'm watching CSPAN.
There was also "no real prospect" of housing values ever going down, according to conventional wisdom before 2008.
Building a federal budget on the assumption that we'll always be able to get cheap money on the international market is a dangerous idea, imho. Healthcare costs are rising 10% a year, and Obamacare didn't really address the main factors creating that rise: more people are getting old and using healthcare, and our current fee-for-service model is proving incapable of regulating its own costs. Healthcare spending is one of the largest drains on the federal budget, as shown in the graph below:
Eventually, we're gonna have to deal with this (in a non-compromised wash of a bill).
It is literally systemic racism.
Would any of you be offended by that, or object to that? Does it seem too race-cardey? It is my read on the situation, though.
"If you don't stop helping all these black people, we will destroy the world economy."
If we raised taxes back to where they need to be and once the economy picked up started dealing with the overblown "structural" problems with out government, we'd have no problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ69X1qt4sQ
Also, Defense Cut needs to mean "stop developing F-22s and UFOs", not "cut the service members and veterans benefits."
What a lot of people forget about Keynesian economics is that it calls for spending cuts during times of economic booms. This both helps combat any issues with an overheating economy (unsustainably low unemployment) and the surplus is used to pay down debt. With treasury yields as low as they are now, I am more than comfortable waiting until we are firmly in our next boom cycle to begin that discussion.
It's systemic racism, but it isn't actual racism. I don't see any evidence that most of the Republicans hate black people, they just want to keep their money to themselves.
As long as we can make the distinction, I'm fine with using the term. But be prepared for someone to whirlwind in here and start ranting about teh 'cisms
This.
Which is why a large amount of the recent focus on our "looming debt crisis", especially from those folks who are advocating radical austerity programs aimed at the poor as a way to solve this so-called crisis, is far less about actually dealing with the federal debt responsibly and more about ginning up a panic to roll back the Great Society and New Deal even further.
Right, fiscal policy (I don't remember what Keynes said about monetary policy) should countervail the direction of the market. So government spending should be up during times of recession (to combat the lack of private firm spending and investment) and down during boom periods (to prevent an economy from overheating).
Eh, I suspect the same thing that happened to the housing market will happen with health care, the bubble will eventually have to burst.
What bothers me more is that medicaid dwarfs even defense spending. I'm all for chasing after the debt, but I'm not going to take anyone serious about it until they address the huge elephants in the room like medicaid and defense spending. But no, we can't go after that, we've got bigger fish to fry first, like chasing after GOP pet annoyances like Planned Parenthood and NPR.
It's against humans.