GOP Rep. Steve King Says Obama Will Be Impeached If Government Defaults

Isn't there any way the people can bring about a 'no confidence' (directed at Congress) vote like they have in other countries?

Let's point the finger at who really is at fault...Congress, not the President...all he does is recommend options/plans and then sign on the dotted line...it's up to Congress to hash out the details...seems this guy is just trying to pass the buck as far as who is responsible for this mess...

His crime, in Republicans' eyes, is having the audacity to be a Democrat while President.

trying to impeach a president doing his job? my question..is there a law that can impeach or hold accountable the house and senate ( and i am talking about everyone) that has been a party to this fiasco? president obama left this with his vice president and now information is surfacing that says the republicans broke down those talks to get the president involved and are holding us the american people hostage...what recourse do we have other than the elections...again want to talk about his leadership while using every breath they have to undermine it..but many people and the rest of the world see this for what it is...so bent on destroying the president (1 man) that they are willing to put an entire country (millions) at risk..

Unfortunately, as I understand it there is no way to impeach our Senators or Representatives for Malfeasance in Office. The surest way to do this is at the next election vate against any and all incumbents. Won't happen though because there are just too many simple minded folks who vote strictly by the party line. If an Anti-Incumbent movement could be started nationally, which the lousy Media outlets we currently have got behind then we might just get something positive done! I sure am glad that I am old and this one, 2012, will probably be my last one to suffer through!

It appears that the House has sole discretion for bringing about impeachment and the Senate for trying the case. So, not gonna happen. No republican would ever be impeached by this House and no dem is likely to be convicted by this Senate. Would be delightful if it were up to a public referendum along the lines of what WI has done with their state legislature and soon their governor. That would be a hoot. The whole town would be on trial.

Rich-365548

His crime, in Republicans' eyes, is having the audacity to be a Democrat while President.

.... a melatonin-enhanced Democrat to make matters worse.

Yeah, I played that card and it's the truth. While racism may not drive all of the Tea OPers, there's just no way that the level of vitriol directed at this man from Inauguration Day forward makes any sense, any other way. Catch these people in private conversation and there's no doubt what's in the background. I've heard it for myself.

Yes, rightwingers, I know this will piss you off. Now ask me if I care. Have the courage to confront your own problems.

I just wish they would remember that "impeachment" is a TRIAL for CRIME

It really is too bad that stupidity and ignorance aren't crimes. We could get rid of rep King with relative ease then!

Goal #1 for the GOP/TP seems to be to bring down this President.

Goal #1 for the GOP/TP seems to be is to bring down this President.

FTFY. After all, deeds are sufficient evidence of intent, no?

I've said it before but it bears repeating-

Grover Freaking Norquist is not.. repeat IS NOT an elected official, so why in the HELL does what he think people need to SIGN MATTERS in the SLIGHTEST?!?!

If I were to walk into a congressman's office and DEMAND that they sign this, I'd be LAUGHED out of the damn office! Who the hell IS this guy to DEMAND they sign anything at all?

The GOP said their "Goal" was to make Obama a one term president, so they are removing our civil rights peice by peice, and fighting with Obama on everything, it WILL backfire in 2012

People see the GOP for what and who they really represent and it isn't US.

I know this sounds defeatist, but if I move back to Canada, who is coming with me. :))

I might be persuaded..lol

I could use Canada's Health care, wish we had it here but NO the GOP don't want it.

I just wish they would remember that "impeachment" is a TRIAL for CRIME.

Technically "impeachment" is like an indictment. Sure you would think only Presidents who actually committed a crime would be impeached, but as we have seen, Republicans don't roll with that standard.

Tappy- why do you think that Shrub and Darth Cheney are TERRIFIED to leave the country? lol They know damn well they'd be arrested the MOMENT their plane touched down! :)

Sue,

It was down to 63 cents at one point, but the Canadian dollar right now is considered to be 20 cents overvalued (yeah it is the facebook value of currencies lol). Even so, right now, if the GOP get their way, it will probably be just as viable to invest in Canada (its small market is a hinderence) than in the US. That alone will spell trouble for the US economy.

Yeah it was down that low in the early 90's when the, as O'Reilly put it, communist government of canada actually finally tackled the deficit and started to pay down the debt. The conservative government replacement, took them a few years, finally put that budget surplus in the bud and start up on the record deficits again. Man those tax cuts just made me feel so good.

As for the economy, you really need to put it into perspective. It is a resource based, risk adverse country. The manufacturing sector has been hit really hard and that impacts the two big provinces (ontario and quebec). The risk adverse nature of the country means that it really doesn't get involved in anything groundbreaking. (I am not talking about stupid risk like the financial industry crap, I am just talking about real investment risk).

So having said that about my country, to think that with all those disadvantages to the country, for what I want to move the direction of my company into, to think that Canada right now is about even in terms of investment viability compared to the US, even with an overvalued dollar, is fracking scary.

what is sad is the number of people that hoping this will happen, so they can make a few bucks on overpriced gold.

Jonathan-2055273

I know this sounds defeatist, but if I move back to Canada, who is coming with me. :

I'm already there, (beautiful Vancouver BC) I saw this crap coming over 2 years ago when I decided to move to Canada ! In spite of Obama's win in 08", I knew the GOP would become incensed enough to resort to drastic measures and look what we've gotten so far. Tax breaks for the rich, more deregulation in the works, the plan to gut the EPA and Dept. of Education, spending cuts that will negatively affect millions of lives, purposely forcing a national debt default, nationwide GOP states passing draconian voting regulations intentionally meant to disenfranchise voters (especially democratic voters), virtually no jobs plan at all (other than reducing the corporate tax), the embracement of the dangerously ignorant/holier than thou/fascist Tea Party. Basically a complete GOP takeover of the US is what their agenda has been and is now close to becoming a very nasty reality

I will however come back to the US if and when the revolution starts. maybe with pitchforks and lit torches to begin with and then let's see where it escalates once the people of America realize that they have witnessed an unimagined coup d" etat in their own country ! (that kind of thing only happens in third world countries Right?) You know, all through history, many government leaders have been physically pulled from office, tried in a court of law (or not) and either shot or hanged for crimes less destructive than what the GOP/TeaParty is currently engaging in. It couldn't happen to a more deserving crowd !

.... a melatonin-enhanced Democrat to make matters worse.

This is the crux of the matter. The people who want to destroy this country know that there is an inherent weakness in the American culture... the legacy of racism that still looms over us. The majority of whites have grown up and moved forward on this issue, but there is still a substantial proportion who have not. Among those who have not, racial attitudes range from outright hatred of blacks to a mild, almost imperceptible feeling that "they" are okay, but just not quite as good, or smart, or honest, or competent. These are the folks who say, "Some of my best friends are black", but would have a conniption if their daughter married one.

Those who want to see this country crash and burn know our Achilles Heel.. They know that this is their moment to bring us down. They have chiseled away at the confidence that Americans had in this President at the beginning of his term. The open disrespect for him from Congress to the rightwing talking heads on tv and radio is tolerated by the public and the "liberal" media to an extent that you really wouldn't expect, and this makes him and us that much more vulnerable to the enemy...

Around 5-6 years back, I was toying with the idea of moving somewhere on Vancouver Island, BC. I didn't like how non Canadians have to pay higher property taxes, and many properties don't include land/strata ownership.

I went with Costa Rica instead. I'm still in the USA 25% of the time, though my wife and son prefer to stay in CR.

With the current political climate, and ongoing corporate takeover of our nation(since the late 90's/early 2000's), I'm considering selling my property and portion of my business in the US.

I hear Ecuador is nice, is very pension/foreigner friendly, and has super low property taxes.

Sue,

What really irritates me is that they've been doing that very thing to Obama from day one.

3rdtime

I just wish they would remember that "impeachment" is a TRIAL for CRIME.

Exactly!!!!

wouldn't it be nice if the GOP'er actuallly knew what Impeach ment? jus spew their BS

Man o man...it is getting to be a riot at all the clowns in GOPTeaBag 500.00 suits roaming he halls of the House. First, Boehner says the GOPTeaBags are going it alone to save the day. Now the Idiot King, or maybe the King of idiots...is saying Obama will be impeached. There is no way King now with the debt ceiling issue, and the prior budget talks, that they are doing a lot of fairy tale wishing and unicorn dreaming. I think that some of the GOPTeaBags are getting the idea that their party is about as popular with the majority of intelligent Americans as a plague of boils on their butts, and trusted even less.

Their pompous, arrogant and don't give a damn attitude toward America and its people is not only disgusting, it is making the GOPTeaParty not only the laughing stock of the world, but, the most hated group of people because of what they are doing to the world in general, simply out of their political and personal hatred of one man.... The President of the US, and don't care if they destroy America and the rest of the world with it trying to cast him out of the WH. No matter how the debt ceiling issue turns out, the GOPTeaBags will forever be doomed with the rest of the world leaders. Even if a GOPTeaBag should happen to gain the Presidency, the world leaders will shun them. They will never trust the GOPTeaBags, because if the GOPTeaBags are not even loyal to their own country, why should the rest of the world trust them to keep their word on anything.

So, let the idiot King and the rest of the GOPTeaBags run off at the mouth and dream their fairy tales, the only ones they are impressing or fooling are themselves and their 'base' supporters.

3rdtime

I just wish they would remember that "impeachment" is a TRIAL for CRIME.

Or for lying about getting a blowjob -sarc-

Sue - - It is laughable, but, it is also very sad that one side of America's long standing two-party system, a system that has always been contentious, but, always able to come together for what was best for America and its people. The GOP party of 2011 is nothing short of political terrorists that employ hostage taking and intimidation to get their way, with no interest in what is best for America or is people. Their allegiance has been bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers, Corporate Mafia, Big Oil and the Religious Extremists. They are no longer part of the American Democratic political or governing system. They are like the Gestapo, storming into negotiations demanding they be given everything they want and giving nothing, and storming out when they don't get their way making more threats.

IMHO, the GOP/TeaParty has become the American Taliban, where if they don't get their way they threaten to politically, economically and financially annihilate the country with no remorse. I can only hope that the majority of American people are seeing them for what they really are with every step they are taking now to bring America down. They are trying to do from within what no country in the history of America has ever been able to do.....destroy America.

And using our own system of politics and governing to do it.

Sue...your points are all well made and well put and I agree. There are times that people must see the worst of things in order to appreciate the good things that they have or had, and to be more vigilant and temperate in their choices of those who will affect the quality of our lives as people, and the security and stability of our country. I can't think of any better examples of making hasty and emotional decisions based on anger and lack of diligence in properly vetting their choices than states such as FL, WI, OH, NJ, IN, MI, and others who are now suffering dictatorship economic conditions and Sharia law religious persecution and denial of their human rights.

These states and the suffering of their people have been like a super nova star shining brightly and showing the rest of America what they too could be suffering if they also let themselves be fooled by rabid wolves in sheep's clothing. So, you are right in that sometimes it is a good to get burnt to learn, or be reminded of, of the pain of playing with fire.

I do hope my wish comes true, for all America. And I hope that the people of those states where such radical, bigoted and inhumane laws have been forced on the people, especially, the women, and their constitutional rights denied or cast out, can and will be repealed and/or undone by those who will abide by the Constitution and state laws as they existed before Nov 2010.

I agree that what the people in WI and OH are doing is truly great, and they must know they have full support of the majority of the American people in their political rebellion. And I feel sure America will be seeing more such rebellions in the months to come.

One of the most precious gifts given to the American people by our forefathers, is our right to vote. I pray that the people of America will use that precious gift more wisely in 2012.

Not so much for treason (though I certainly agree with the sentiment), but I wonder...

If the president can be impeached, why would there not be procedures in place to impeach and remove Representatives who are willfully ignoring the wishes of the american public? (I honestly don't know if there is something in that vein that's an option, but I find it apalling that we might be stuck playing these assinine little GAMES through Nov 2012)

If you do that then you have to try Obama as he voted to not raise it as a senator

Did any of the Republicans currently in the House vote to raise it back then?

Let's get 'dem freedom-hate'n, secret Muslims!

Ohhh I see their racist now for not raising the debt ceiling I get it. Bah

No, they're hypocrites for gladly raising the debt ceiling under Bush and now acting like the whole idea of raising the debt ceiling is some anti-American maleficence dreamt up by the socialist dictator, Obama.

No, they're hypocrites for gladly raising the debt ceiling under Bush and now acting like the whole idea of raising the debt ceiling is some anti-American maleficence dreamt up by the socialist dictator, Obama.

The only reason they're saying "No" now is because there's a Black man in the White House. The only thing they Republicans want to do is to sink Obama's presidency and they don't care who they screw in the process.

The antics of the Republicans will come back and bite them in the ass, if California, Wisconsin & New York are any indication.

Anyone think it's possible to organize a real (not Astroturf i.e. Teabag) grassroots movement with two simple messages?

1.) Deal with the debt by stopping the Bush tax cuts and stupid loopholes for the wealthy, and

2.) Any politician who refuses to rescind the Bush tax cuts and stupid loopholes for the rich will be jobless after Election Day 2012.

I'd be more than happy to volunteer my time to get that message out.

@Malfunktion,

Yeah, Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator. IMO, any former Senator might have to go another way after being elected President, even in a similar circumstance. Bigger job, different repsonsibilities and priorities---is it truly hypocrisy to realize this and act accordingly?

Would you expect a CEO to behave on the job exactly as he did when he worked in the mail room as a junior clerk? Of course you wouldn't. In fact, depending on your circumstances, you'd either sell your stock or call for his removal if he did.

Fact is, Congress has been rubber-stamping debt ceiling raises for years---IMO, in an irresponsible fashion, playing a game that can no longer be sustained. Where was all this fiscal concern in the GOP when they went along with these raises NINETEEN TIMES in less than a decade...when Bush was in office? If the Federal budget is off in a ditch, who's job was/is it to manage the situation? Congress'...not the President's. So how would Obama be able to "block" debt payments?

I'm amazed that Rep. King doesn't know this. Maybe he should be impeached...

Congressman Steve King might have issues retaining his seat this next election cycle. The 4th district in Iowa was redrawn and is now more moderate than it previously was. Additionally his likely opponent is the former and popular First Lady of Iowa, Christie Vilsack who has both name recognition and the ability to generate campaign funds.

Well, that makes it more clear. He's got a tough election campaign in his near future so it's become time to ramp up the crazy to get his base fired up.

King has always been crazy as a loon, and it's hard to imagine how even the dumbest population group in Iowa would have elected him in the first place.

He's got a crap load of buddies up in Sioux City and then the district used to be a right wing religious bastion. Now it includes Ames, which is a college town and quite a few more moderate bedroom communities for Des Moines. I think it'll be a lot tougher for him to hold in the next election. Especially if he pulls his usual, "you're not worthy" bull@!$%# he normally lays out on his opponents.

includes Ames, which is a college town....Especially if he pulls his usual, "you're not worthy" bull@!$%# he normally lays out on his opponents.

Yes, nothing stirs up the young like being told something like that...I have no doubt that they will act like any other group of people and register and vote against him big time...

Just a small point left out, the president executes the laws. It is his branch of government (under the treasury department) that is responsible for paying the bills allocated by the congressional. Any default we enter into at this point would be done BY CHOICE of the treasury department since we have the assets to cover all debt for now and through August 2 2011 (and beyond). They would just not want to take the steps that they should take to do that, which is why the discussion of impeachment is being floated.

The debt ceiling is NOT the same as defaulting, we hit the debt ceiling in May. The August 2nd date is arbitrary because the Treasury dept doesn't want to make hard decisions, access idle TARP funds, sell some gold reserves, etc...

rhinehold:

Actually the reason why the deadline for a deal is now is because it takes a few weeks for that deal to get passed into law.

The hitting the debt ceiling didn't cause a default because the government is shifting things around, technically breaking the law. Moving funds from one account into the general fund to make payments. There is no way that anyone can determine exactly when that drop dead rate because there is one variable that can't be predicted. That is how many people with maturing government securities (about 100B per month mature) will roll over their securities or will demand that they get their money back. The August 2 date was an estimation based on the spending trends at the time. TARP funds will be gone by then as if they haven't been allocated, they will have been moved into the general fund.

Yes the GOP now, want to do this in two parts, first part entitlements, then second taxes, NO NO NO

I say taxes first, can't trust the GOP, then Entitlements

Put taxes back when Clinton was in office, I hated it, but it would work

MJL- come on dear.. haven't we talked before about trying to apply LOGIC to Repugs? ;)

ain't happening :)

Stormshadow,

Yes we have, me bad :) :):)

shhhh, I can't help myself

lol I'm guilty myself.. :)

Apparently, King doesn't know that it's actually Congress' function to avoid a default...

How long will TARP funds and selling assets work?

The US has a lot of assets, it depends on what we are willing to sell. For example, selling our national parks to the Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy (taking them out of the hands of political nutjobs and taken care of properly) with the caveat that no development of that land can ever take place, then we could probably fund the government for a couple of years. How much gold do you think the US has in reserve? If it is only enough to run the country for a few months, then perhaps the audit the fed people are right...

SuperSaiyan - "Apparently, King doesn't know that it's actually Congress' function to avoid a default"

The majority of the House Reps have no clue at all what their jobs are all about, and have likely never really read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights. They are nothing but Borgs, and all they know is what they are being told to do by Cantor, Boehner and McConnell....and hate Obama is #1.

And if trying to get Obama out of the WH destroys America and its people, then, using Boehner's summation, "So be it!"

So the "privatize precious national parks" solution?

I offered several solutions, this as one of an example and typically you zero in on it to try to deflect the facts. There are assets that we could use, there is money sitting in accounts we could use, we have gold we could use, etc. All the debt ceiling does is prevent us from BORROWING to pay our bills, nothing else.

So your all for selling everything off.

If we keep borrowing, it will just be taken by our creditors. If you were about to file bankruptcy, would you not sell your assets to avoid it or would you try to keep them while screwing others?

BTW, you don't have to worry, the debt ceiling will be raised because people are not going to be willing to take a hard route when it is easier to keep spending like we do and pass it off to someone else to deal with.

I wouldn't dismiss your points immediately, Rhinehold, since they're logical and would work. I would caution, though, that drastic measures are harder to reverse. If I'm deep in debt and have creditors closing in, I could solve the problem by selling all my furniture and sleeping on the floor. But if I could call my bank and have them raise my credit limit, and then pay off my debt progressively, I'd solve the problem just as well and still have a bed.

You might be skeptical that the US will actually pay off the debt, and I can certainly understand that. At the same time, selling off our parks and gold means that once we're out of debt, we don't have any parks or gold. It's a drastic solution to a problem that has a simpler one: raise the debt limit now, and get serious about paying off our debt. As citizens, that means holding our politicians' feet to the coals.

At any rate, even if your points make sense, neither party is considering those options.

Instead, we have the Republican proposal, which includes decreased spending and offering the debt ceiling as a trade-off -- even though the GOP knows it will have to be raised regardless, so that offer isn't in good faith. This goes against the Democrat proposal, which includes the debt ceiling raise, some entitlement cuts, and closing tax loopholes on the wealthy. Those tax "increases" are favored by a majority of Americans, and decreases the deficit by double the amount of the Republican proposal. Plus, the entitlement cuts suggests to me that the Democrats are honestly trying to meet the GOP half-way.

So let's talk about the actual plans on the table. Which party do you think has the better plan? Which party, if either, do you think is negotiating in good faith?

Steve, you'll have to show me the plan that the Democrats have put forward that are discussing cutting entitlements like SS, because the last I checked the extreme left has called in their clout to get that pulled back off of the table. tonights speeches were about speaking to their extreme bases, keeping them both happy.

Now, a deal will get made and the debt ceiling will be raised (I have always said this), this is all politics we are playing now. And yes, the can will continue to get kicked down the road.

You're right, I should've been more clear. The current plan doesn't include entitlement cuts, but the initial plan did, and the GOP rejected it. To me, that suggests that the Democrats were attempting to meet them half-way, but the Republicans had no interest in an honest compromise.

The current plan on the table from Reid is calling Boehner's bluff, who's now insisting on entitlement cuts (ironically) even when presented with a plan that has savings matching the debt ceiling increase with no new revenues. In other words, it's exactly what Boehner says he wants, except for the entitlement cuts that he rejected a week ago. Ludicrous.

Now, you avoided my questions entirely. I know the debt ceiling will be raised. I know there's political gamesmanship going on. My questions were: Which party do you think has the better plan? Which party, if either, do you think is negotiating in good faith? If it helps, that last one could be amended to "better faith," since you don't seem to think either is actually acting in good faith.

The current plan doesn't include entitlement cuts, but the initial plan did, and the GOP rejected it.

And initially the Republicans were willing to have tax revenue increases through a variety of manner, and after hearing from their side they pulled it as well.

As far as 'negotiating in good faith', I think that they both are. Behind the scenes. Not where we are seeing because all we see are the politics.

As for the public side, the attempt by the left to scare old people with the SS checks comment by THE PRESIDENT which was BS is about as bad as anything I've heard from the right. That was IMO the lowest point of this entire debacle.

And initially the Republicans were willing to have tax revenue increases through a variety of manner, and after hearing from their side they pulled it as well.

I'd appreciate a cited source on this.

As far as 'negotiating in good faith', I think that they both are. Behind the scenes. Not where we are seeing because all we see are the politics.

You still didn't answer which proposal you prefer.

As for the public side, the attempt by the left to scare old people with the SS checks comment by THE PRESIDENT which was BS is about as bad as anything I've heard from the right. That was IMO the lowest point of this entire debacle.

What exactly did you want President Obama to say? He was asked, point-blank, if he could guarantee social security checks if we go into default. He answered, no, he couldn't guarantee that.

When asked, experts widely agreed that while it would be possible to cut SS checks, those methods would come with their own sets of challenges that could render them impractical. In other words, he was right; he couldn't guarantee it. Would you have preferred him to lie?

exactly how much does anyone think that a national park would fetch? It isn't like you can use it for anything. And how rich do you think the sierra club actually is.

If you want to sell the parks for resource exploitation, that is one thing, a pretty sad thing, but selling it to an entity that is essentially a charity and expect to get anything but a pittance for it is just plain silly.

We wouldn't need 'entitlement' cuts if the 'rich' paid at the levels they paid in the early 60's...

If Corporations And The Rich Paid Taxes At The Same Level As The 1960s, The Debt Would Disappear

As congressional negotiators continue to debate the contents of a deficit reduction package, discussions are reportedly tilting toward a deal that will include spending cuts but no revenue increases.

Over at the Campaign for America’s Future, the Institute for Policy Studies’ (IPS) Sam Pizzigati notes that one way to very easily tackle U.S. debt going forward would be to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy to levels more closely matching mid-20th century rates. Pizzigati cites an IPS paper from last spring to make the argument that if corporations and households making more than $1 million paid the same rates as they did in 1961, our debt would virtually disappear in a decade:

Some numbers — from an Institute for Policy Studies report released this past spring — can help us better visualize just how monumental this political failure has been. If corporations and households taking in $1 million or more in income each year were now paying taxes at the same annual rates as they did back in 1961, the IPS researchers found, the federal treasury would be collecting an additional $716 billion a year. In other words, if the federal government started taxing the wealthy and their corporations at the same rates in effect a half-century ago, the federal debt to investors would almost totally vanish over the next decade.

As ThinkProgress has previously reported, the richest Americans are paying their lowest taxes in a generation. Additionally, Center for American Progress experts Michael Linden, Seth Hanlon, and Jordan Eizenga have shown that the United States is actually very low-tax compared to other developed countries.

dcstone1, it's a shame that Kennedy then decided to lower rates in order to combat the results of that high tax rate on the US citizens...

You do realize that 'corporate taxes' are paid for by the poor, right?

Alright: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Debt%20Ceilling.deRugy.Fichtner.4.28.11.pdf

Just to reiterate, in case it was missed: I'm waiting on a response to my request for a citation on Republicans being willing to accept tax hikes, and for a response on my cited expert analysis that Obama was right to say he couldn't guarantee social security checks.

It was missed.

First, a citation on Republicans being willing to accept tax hikes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/republicans-democrats-spar-over-tax-increases-for-debt-deal/2011/07/06/gIQAAMFk0H_story.html

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/07/04/debt_ceiling_republican_senators_willing_to_consider_deal_to_inc.html

As for the analysis that Obama couldn't guarantee ss checks, that is hogwash

SS currently has a 2.6 trillion dollar surplus, saying that the deficit ceiling won't let you make those SS payments is hard to accept on their face UNLESS the president were to divert those funds to another purpose. All he has to do to 'guarantee' those checks is to let them go out as normal and not interfere.

From a link that your link uses as reference to say the same thing:

“I'm now 99.9 percent positive that Treasury has legal authority to pay Social Security benefits in both cases of a government shutdown and hitting the debt limit, since the payment of benefits shouldn’t affect the debt limit because it reduces the trust funds to the exact extent that it increase publicly-held debt,” Fichtner said. “What I don't know is whether Treasury has to pay benefits if it chooses not to.”

The fact may be that he doesn't KNOW about this trust fund and the treasury's ability to use it to pay SS debts, so perhaps in that regard what he said is true. But that makes me even more nervous... I'm kind of giving him the benefit of the doubt here.

As the source says, Rhinehold, diverting funds comes with its own set of challenges, some of which could render it impractical to actually do. No one is claiming it's impossible to divert funds, just that it couldn't be given a guarantee. Since that was the question, he answered accurately.

I know it's en vogue to claim that Obama made some spooky doomsday prediction to scare old people into siding with the Democrats, but the truth is much more dull. A reporter asked if he could guarantee something, and knowing it's better not to promise without 100% certainty, he decided not to. If this is your "lowest point" of the entire debacle, I can only think you have weird standards, an axe to grind, or a misunderstanding of what was actually said.

As the source says, Rhinehold, diverting funds comes with its own set of challenges, some of which could render it impractical to actually do

Except for Social Security, which is clear cut and would impact nothing else. There is nothing that would prevent SS checks from going out except the administration's decision to stop it.

I know it's en vogue to claim that Obama made some spooky doomsday prediction to scare old people into siding with the Democrats, but the truth is much more dull.

It's not 'en vogue' and it is the modus operandi of the Democratic Party unfortunately. Reminiscent of the 1995 debate when ads were produced showing Republicans throwing women in wheelchairs over a bar graph line to ther deaths, etc. This isn't anything new and it is not the first (and won't be the last) time for this president either.

A reporter asked if he could guarantee something, and knowing it's better not to promise without 100% certainty, he decided not to.

Which means he either wanted to cause uncertainty or he truly did not know. In which case I am more concerned.

sue

I thought TARP was gone though. There are assets in there, but they are the as of yet unpaid assets, so they are essentially IOU's from the banks, and GM/Chrysler (TARP is where the auto bailouts came from). Chrysler has been sold off, so that means that Geithner is already using the chrysler funds to pay out bills.

The TARP law has expired so there is no more legal authority to spend the money, so the money was put back into the treasury.

The problem for me with all this is that if all they did was raise the debt limit with the promise of addressing the deficit afterwards, that they would all then come down with a convenient case of amnesia.

However, there is no doubt that the whole process has become a debacle, especially when compared to how easily the debt limit has been raised the previous 1000 times.

I doubt that the democrats would be stupid enough to do that since this administration campaigned on CHANGE and not Business As Usual, hard to then say that it was wrong for your opponent to try to change the game in order to fix the mess, isn't it?

Rhinehold

One last response to you, then I'm moving forward (as we liberals tend to do):

President Obama has tried mightily to execute the reresponsibilities the office demands, but has been met with unprecedented attack, and a flat-out refusal from Mitch McConnell,John Boehner and lock-step Republicans to even consider anything this president says or offers in the way of ideas or compromise.

The voting public will not let that treasonous behaviour go unpunished in 2012. We are paying attention. You really should join us.

You really should join us.

Joining the Democratic Party would make as much sense as joining the Republican Party, sorry. I left the Democratic Party some time ago because of the progressive influence on politics, accusing Republicans of wanting to 'starve grandparents', fear based politics, turning their back on individual liberty, etc. And since that time it has only gotten worse.

Perhaps I should ask you to join the Libertarian Party, the party of real pro-choice... I doubt that you would be interested though. When most people get a taste of power and the ability to force others to do as they say, it's a hard habit to break.

If libertarians ran the United States, there would be no United States of America.

Thank you kindly, Rhine, thank you kindly.

Yellow Dog D.

And he claims he's no conservative. Check his comments.

#7.7 reported as CoH violation.

He can fool himself, not us, Azpaddy.

Rhinehold is a libertarian. That's not the same thing as a liberal but the libertarians seem to be currently trying to rebadge themselves so they aren't thought of as poorly.

AZPaddy,

1) the comment was not a violation of the CoH. Perhaps you don't understand the CoH or my comment?

2) Please do check my comments. Here, how about a few links I have posted just today:

http://rhinehold.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/28/7188207-an-un-american-response-to-the-oslo-attack-glenn-greenwald-saloncom

http://rhinehold.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/28/7187584-mother-jaywalking-faces-more-prison-time-than-man-who-ran-over-her-son-blog-of-rights-official-blog-of-the-american-civil-liberties-union

The first one is great because I get called a member of the 'far left'.

Fact is you just seem to have some inability to understand that there are people who aren't conservative yet not liberal as well. I don't know if it is just that you haven't been exposed to those people or are just blind to anything outside of your world view.

Education For the Masses

There seems to be a very big increase in Libertarians and Independents since Nov. 8th, 2008.

I've also noticed many Newsviners enter comments as though they've been issued talking points from conservative activists, yet insist they aren't conservative.

Odd.

LOL, I've already pointed you to my writing which shows you are wrong: http://suehughes72.newsvine.com/_news/2011/07/25/7160713-gop-rep-steve-king-says-obama-will-be-impeached-if-government-defaults?pc=25&sp=75&threadId=3181514&last=1311877332#c56386570

But since you give the date of 'nov 8th 2008' you are obviously making the assertion that these 'new Libertarians' are all talk but really conservative, let's go back further...

(ignoring the fact that I ran as a candidate for the Libertarian Party in 2003 of course).

http://rhinehold.org/2008/01/21/the-content-of-their-character/#more-152

http://rhinehold.org/2008/01/20/doomed/ is a good one where I credit Thomm Hartman for being one of the few to get that subject right

http://rhinehold.org/2008/01/17/papers-please/ Anti-bush

http://rhinehold.org/2007/08/09/passing-the-buck/ me writing in 2007 against Bush's spending

http://rhinehold.org/2007/03/20/more-of-the-same/ again

http://rhinehold.org/2007/03/08/dapper-dan/

http://rhinehold.org/2006/11/15/equal-protection/ Equal protection for gay marriage

http://rhinehold.org/2006/07/14/the-flying-car/

http://rhinehold.org/2006/06/22/line-item-talking-points/

I'll leave off there for now, but it is clear I have a long documented history that disproves your attempts to 'dismiss' me as a conservative in independant's clothing. I can pretty much bet that you won't dare go back and actually read the things that I wrote back then, but anyone else reading this will surely see your attempts for what they are, a fallacious attempt to not have to actual counter what I am saying by labelling me as something that I am not.

Rhinehold

You've run for elective office?? Please tell me you didn't actually win, and that you're not in office now.

BTW.....I'm impressed by the sheer number of references made to yourself, but I just no longer have the strength to click on any of the links.

Who do you think I am....Barack Obama??

I can pretty much bet that you won't dare go back and actually read the things that I wrote back then

Yup, I was right again.

The problem is that the House has the power to impeach. The Senate to try the accused.

Do you not believe the gang of nut cases in this House are crazy/stupid enough to impeach Obama? I do.

IF the "Young Turds" of the House continue in their imbecilic ways they will cause the most devastating World Depression ever seen!

again they can TRY to, but it'd be a futile effort. and at the same time waste more time and effort on a non issue, along with wasting more millions in taxpayer $$'s

There's no grounds for his impeachment, and although they can try, they have nothing to base their impeachment on. And in return, Obama can sue them all for slander and defamation of character. So, if they really try to impeach him, they will dig an even bigger hole for themselves.

They know they are all doomed for re-election. So they want their last hurrah for the history books.

I agree that this is what it's about ... they have wanted to destroy the social safety net for decades. But I think they grossly misread their mandate ... the TP faction of the GOP are super cocky.

This is what has astounded me for months.

S.S. has been raided by politicians, and the money never paid back. Half of the money in S.S. came out of the pockets of taxpayers and it hasn't added a single dime to the deficit, as tax cuts have.

Yet cuts to S.S. are viewed by the TP's as the sole solution to our "spending addiction" rather than raising taxes on those who are paying less than ever while making more than ever.

Same here, am looking forward to it, only I'll be fighting on the side of the TPP.

talk about backing a losing horse..

After these elections I think most of the TP'ers are going to be sitting outside rubbing their respective asses and going "DAMN that hurt! Where did we go wrong?!?"

A TP revolution??? HAHAHAHA...what are they going to do, put "real tree" camo on their walkers...maybe "stealth hoverounds"??? A bunch of billy bobs thinking that their deer hunting "skills" are going to help them.

Snowbirds rolling down the road in their RVs.

that, i would be scared of...

Andrew, that came out of my Stephen King persona.

horrifying!! you should write a book, i would read it... they'd probably make a movie out of it!

As creative writer myself, I'd be happy to proof read the book! :-))

A long time ago, in L.A, another guy and I thought about writing fiction. My ideas and his filling in the background. It was a hoot bull@!$%#ing about it.

I have written two manuscripts for two Novels (Fiction), some song lyrics, poetry and children's stories over the years of my life. I finally sent in one of the Novel manuscripts at my mother's insistence a year before she died. It came back with suggest ins of some rewrites and editing. There have been some very emotional family events in my life since then that have not been conducive to a train of thought sound enough to get involved in them again. Maybe one day before my time is up I will have the mindset to finish one of them to publication.

10-4, I might be able to write a short story, but I would have to take a lot of classes. Hope you get the determination to fulfill your you mindset, Tink.

Tink-2285193....Maybe one day before my time is up I will have the mindset to finish one of them to publication.

Tink...Do it NOW....You will never look back at the past with regret...All the Best to you!!!

Just watching Jansing & Co..President/Democratic Congress looking at the 14th amendment...Good...

Actually he will not be the 1st President to do this...Truman did it in 1948 to raise the debt limit...executive order....

Thanks, YD. And good luck with the short story. Both my Novels started out as short stories. :-))

Hey Rowdy, thanks for the encouragement. I have been thinking about it too. I bought one of those voice recognition programs where you can just talk and the computer automatically types what you say. The program I got was from IBM, and it was a good program except for one thing. It does not capiche Southern drawls, and my mix of Louisiana, Alabama, Miss and Texas drawl and pronunciations just wasn't workable. The words came out in the computer like some kind of alien code. So, I'm gonna try a scanning program into text. I don't think I'll live long enough to retype the whole works. I used to be able to type over 1`00 words per minute, but, these days there is a tidge of confusion between fingers and keyboard :-)

It is an obvious reason Bill Clinton made public mention of the 14th amendment and it being an option the President could employ if left with no other option than default. While Truman did use the 14th amendment, it did not involve the debt ceiling, but, regarding nationalization of steel mills during WWII, and regarded that Truman acted in an emergency situation. So, the legality of it's use is still being reviewed. Or Obama could do a Clinton suggested, just use the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling and face whatever consequences come after, which could take years. He could also be vindicated for using the amendment to save the country and its people from the destructive results of a default because of the failure of Congress to do its job and raise the ceiling themselves.

Tink

I don't believe the Obama administration is looking at the use of the 14th amendment anymore. There are several reasons for it, but I suspect that part of it is political (not trying to give the GOP any more false ammunition) and the other part is that Congress is responsible for the debt anyways, not the president. So if the US defaults, it isn't the presidents fault, ESPECIALLY since no legislation is even close to being presented to the president.

The reality is that the damage has been done. The US will most likely lose its AAA rating thereby increasing interest rates and increasing the cost of borrowing money. This will have two significant impacts among others, one good (people and companies may stop relying on cheap debt) and one bad ( that borrowing to invest will cost more and that will slow the economy down ).

Well....the President can't force the House and Senate to do their jobs. And if they are left with a political deadlock between them, then he will have little choice not to use it or perhaps another option that may be open to him. But, default is not an option, therefore, he will use whatever is available to him to prevent default. The GOPTeaBags have deliberately bought this crisis, so let them wear it as their Sunday best while they go and praise their Tea Party masters. They should have a tattoo of a tea bag put in the middle of their forehead so they can forever be known as the lawmakers who deliberately tanked America to save the rich and punish the middle class, poor and seniors.

Tink

That is fine, but the constitution clearly says that it is up to congress to ensure that the US government pays its debts.

I don't disagree with what the Constitution says that the US must pay its debts. I understand it. But, if the GOPTeaBags deliberately delay or refuse to compromise and come to a bipartisan agreement, there is nothing the President can do to them. So he then will have to make a choice to continue playing the stupid, asinine games the GOPTeaBags continue throwing at him while Rome burns, or do what is right for America and its people as President and use that part of the Constitution that will allow him to raise the debt ceiling without Congress. Raising the debit ceiling is not the Presidents job, but, maintaining the security and stability of American is.

At every turn the GOPTeaBags keep throwing the decision back in Obama's lap, they refuse to do their job and have deliberately caused this crisis. They have had this planned out since January this year when they gained control of the House. This crisis did not have to happen, it is a deliberately induced crisis by the GOPTeaBags, and then they keep putting the job on the back of the President, which is against the Constitution. They are counting on the average American people being as stupid as they are about the requirements of whose job raising the ceiling is, and trying to make Obama out to be the bad guy.

But, they are also destroying their own party along with America and its people, and if that is part of the results of the default, then the default will not have been for nothing. But, the TeaBags are too stupid to see it, and I have no sympathy for their ignorance. They chose to climb into bed with the Devil and his angels in order to get elected, and now they will have to pay the price for their betrayal of their country and its people.

The GOPTeaBags deliberately created this crisis, they own it, and they will have to wear it for the rest of history.

Personally I think the debt ceiling itself is not constitutional, as it technically allows congress to pass any spending bill in congress (appropriations) and then not allow the executive branch to pay for it (the debt ceiling).

But, default is not an option, therefore, he will use whatever is available to him to prevent default.

Well, the US has already defaulted once (under Carter) so I'm not sure why it 'isn't an option'...

However, the president can use whatever is available to him that he is constitutionally allowed to do in order to pay the debt. In this case, he cannot BORROW more money to pay our debts, that doesn't mean he can't access other funds to do it, convert assets to cash, etc. But can he start by forcing us to house soldiers in our houses? No, that is also against he constitution. Can he just take 5000 from every citizen? Nope, again he doesn't have that power so he can't do it. In the same way, he can't ignore the debt ceiling since it is the 'law of the land' as progressives are want to say. The 14th amendment makes it clear that while our debts are valid, it is still up to congress to deal with it.

Rhinhold:

I would need to see proof of that allegation as I could not find anything to indicate that the US defaulted under carter. If that were the case, then the commentary on the news indicating that the US has never defaulted (in modern times because it did default after the civil war IIRC) since the constitutional amendment that states that US debt is inviolate.

Fantasy from Rhinhold about defaluting under Carter but what else have we come to expect?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-27/business/ct-biz-0727-phil-20110727_1_debt-ceiling-debt-ceiling-talks-debt-limit

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/95271

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8639896/The-last-time-the-US-defaulted-and-blamed-the-printer.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/delayed-payments-in-1979-offer-glimpse-of-default-consequences/2011/07/10/gIQARRBj7H_story.html

The fact that you immediately assume this to be 'fantasy' instead of doing the 5 minute search to find out if what someone else says is true or not is indicative of the partisan echo chambers that people have erected for themselves in this day and age.

Seriously, learn your history before acting like you know everything first.

From the last link

And yet, the study by Zivney and his partner, Dick Marcus, found that even that brief failure to meet some obligations had expensive consequences. The pair concluded "that the series of defaults resulted in a permanent increase in interest rates" of more than half a percent, which over time translated into billions of dollars in increased interest payments on the nation's debt, a cost shouldered by taxpayers.

So the impact is severe,

This is the exact same scenario, though because the debt ceiling was raised, it wasn't really a true default, it was however extremely serious. This was caused by holding the debt limit hostage to political games, and the technical problems related to the processing of payments after they had started to be shut down in anticipation of not being able to incur more debt.

It actually makes it even more imperative that the games STOP.

Your first link has a one line suggestion that the U.S. defaulted but no factual evidence.

Your second link says it was a technical default but only on paper and comes from a blog.

Your third link says exactly the same thing.

As does your fourth link.

But to compare Carter's incident to the crash that's about to happen? Yes, it's a fantasy.

Jonathan-2055273 11.19 - There is a yes and no on the constitutionality of the 4th article in the 14th Amendment, but, thus far, I have not read anything or heard anything that states any decision by the Supreme Court declaring it is unconstitutional. Until such time the SCOTUS makes that decision and clarifies its constitutionality, there is no reason why the President can not invoke article 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling in a state of economic emergency. An emergency situation deliberately and cold heartedly created totally by the GOPTeaBags in order to try to force the President to have no choice but to use the 14th amendment to prevent collapse of the US economy and credit ratings and protect the security of America and its people, so that McConnell and his horde of American Taliban can then try to impeach him.

The GOPTeaBags are willing to tank America and plunge not only America but the rest of the world into economic and financial destruction all for their selfish greed, obsessive lust for power and to obey the commands of their masters, all for the hope of getting another 2 years to leech from the American taxpayers teats and leave them dead or dying when they dry up.

tink,

which is WHY I said I THINK the debt ceiling is unconstitutional. It hasn't been taken to the supreme court because it has never been challenged, nor has there been a legal reason to challenge it. In order for there to be a legal reason to challenge it, the nation would have to default otherwise there is no 'injured' party.

But to compare Carter's incident to the crash that's about to happen? Yes, it's a fantasy

When did I compare the two? I made a simple factual statement that we DID default.

there is no reason why the President can not invoke article 4 of the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling in a state of economic emergency.

The constitution is CLEAR on it in article 5, if you read the whole amendment. In the amendment states:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

There is no power given to the President to do anything outside of the congress concerning the debt of the country, he can't violate the laws in order to pay them. There debts can be paid without raising the ceiling, he just can't BORROW to do it, which is the laws that congress have passed in this regard and it is clear that the congress is the only one given the power to change the laws in regard to this amendment.

To suggest otherwise is the real fantasy, one the left wants to employ, that states that the president can do whatever the hell he wants. It is simpley NOT the case. Othweise there is no limit on the president and we live in a dictatorship.

Rhinehold 11.20 - "Well, the US has already defaulted once (under Carter) so I'm not sure why it 'isn't an option'"

Please provide proof that that statement.

I already have in 11.23

Jonathan 11.27 - I don't know about you, but, I for one would not want to 'test' the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment at the risk of destroying America and its people like GOPTeaBags obviously are. They know all to well what will happen if America defaults, but, they don't give a damn, and relish the idea of being the ones to 'bring America to its knees' and the brink of total destruction. So...is that really worth 'testing' the 14th amendment to find out if it is unconstitutional? I don't think so. So...if the only way to find out if the 14th amendment is constitutional or not is to deliberately default, I pray we never find out.

Tink

I am not saying I would like to as well. I am just stating why that determination hasn't been made. Quite frankly, the damage is already done to be honest, and it won't be a short term impact, it will be longer term. The way I looked at it when talking about the tea party in the 2010 election, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

You do realize that the reason we are about to lose our credit rating ISN'T because of the debt ceiling, but because we have too much debt and show no way we can possibly lower it, right? This is because the congress and president, when all was controlled by one party, didn't do what was necessary to get the financial house in order and instead decided to borrow, borrow and borrow even more than Bush ever dreamed of doing. And now that we are close to the debt ceiling neither party is really willing to do what it needs to do to try to ever pay off the debt...

We are not credit worthy, that is the problem. The debt ceiling is the distraction. Trying to blame all of that on the tea party, who is really only one of the few groups wanting to actually pay back our debts, is laughable. I'm not a member of the tea party, I'm a libertarian (one of the other groups wanting us to become financially secure again) but it seems to me the real problem are the Kensyians who wrongly feel that we can just keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing without any real plan to pay back what we borrow, wanting us to have good times and pass off the hard decisions and the requirement to pay back the debt to our children...

It's because we are about to miss our payments Rhinhold. We've overspent because we undertaxed for far too long but goodness knows we can't get the conservatives to understand it. Their bull@!$%# boils down to, "we should cut the poor and middle class off at the knees so the rich don't have to suffer" and frankly I'm sick to death of such an asinine idea. You'll find that a vast majority of the population is willing to pay more taxes in order to pay down the debt except for that 26% who just can't understand it's whay needs to happen no matter how many times you rub their nose in it.

Jonathan 11.32 - I agree that a good deal of damage has already been done, and America and its people will be feeling it for some time to come in many different ways. The worst, IMHO, is the integrity of our country in the world. Never in the history of America has it been so humiliated, maligned and denigrated, and that it has been at the hands of members of our own governing body speaks volumes of how Democracy works and our respect as a world leader. It is very doubtful that any Republican President will ever be respected among the world leaders in the future because of the actions of the GOPTeaBags now in charge of the Republican party in Congress, and what they have done to our country, and the rest of the world as well, all for their own political ideology and greed. It will not soon be forgotten , or forgiven..and they can't blame it on President Obama, or the Democrats. They will suffer the consequences of their own actions for decades to come, or longer.

Tink

Well considering that the Venture Capital/Private Equity firm that I am dealing with has specifically requested that I look at options other than staying in the US, that is a pretty telling picture.

Jonathan...I am assuming that you are talking about moving your money out of the US, not physically moving out of the US, and if I am correct, the only thing it would tell me is that the investment may not have been that sound to start with. I am not anywhere near as nervous about the markets now as I was when they hit the basement in 2008. Unless you have a guarantee in writing that putting your money somewhere outside of the US would be any less vulnerable, I would not do so, as it could be even more vulnerable. But, that is me, and I wish you luck.

Tink

The money is coming from outside of the US, to be invested in the US. I am canadian by citizenship, though I have had my ownership stake for close to 20 years. The VC/PE money hasn't been finalized yet, and because it is a long term investment (unusual for VC I know but it is there), and yes it is risky, but hey, that is supposed to be the hallmark of the US economy, a place where someone can take risks.

I honestly don't care about the stock market. I spent a decade in the financial industry, and know full well that the stock market gyrations are about as numbing as those vibrating beds in a cheap motel. It is the longer term problems and the obvious realization that the US government has no ability to sit down like adults and figure this out, for short term benefit and longer term benefit.

My money by the way came in close to 20 years ago from canada, and has been here ever since. Nobody can say anything about me taking it out if it comes to pass.

Tink:

By the way, I don't need to work, I can take all of my money, give away 90% of it, and live the rest of my life in comfort. It doesn't matter if we fold up the company and just disappear with the money, for either me or my business partner. It is the same thing for him, he doesn't need all the 'money' he has. We choose to invest it in something that is risky, but is also something that we both believe is of value.

Now are we going to do it in the face of an environment where the people have lost interest in investment? or where the people have no interest in the future? God no. Do I sound philosophical about that, maybe, but hey, a HUGE part of the success of a business is the overall environment, and right now, it is getting harder and harder to believe in the long term future of the country's economy. The Tea Party unfortunately is making it worse. The constant push for short term gain over long term prosperity is especially troublesome.

Personally I am not a radical (on either side) so maybe people think I am not passionate about the end result, and I am not, I honestly don't give a rats a$$ if a republican or democrat is elected, I care about the process. But if the people really do want what the Tea Party wants, that is fine, just let me pack my bags and get the hell out of dodge, because I don't want to live through an economic depression. There is an old adage, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

It's because we are about to miss our payments Rhinhold.

Actually, no we aren't. There is enough money coming in to make our payments on our debt, pay SS, pay the military, etc. Some things will have to get shut down, some services may have to get cut and the like, but that is ONLY if we don't access existing funds we have that are sitting around for other purposes or don't convert some of our non-liquid assets into liquid form. On August 3rd, if we don't increase the debt ceiling, life is going to go on pretty much as it is now. That's a real fundamental problem, people don't seem to understand the ramifications of it.

BTW, S&P and Moody's have both said that they may lower our credit rating EVEN IF we raise the debt ceiling and pay every single bill. Their issue is that we are despratately unable to keep borrowing at the rate we are and spending at the rate we are without any clear plan on how we are ever going to pay our debts off.

We've overspent because we undertaxed for far too long

Again, BS. Our revenues have increased every year, until 2008, but we are spending WAY MORE. That is not low revenues, that is spending too much. I have an idea, let's have spending capped at what it was the last year of Clinton (you can even adjust it for inflation), since everyone seems to think that was 'the golden era' and then we can talk about raising taxes if we need to. We wouldn't need to, but hey, I doubt you are going to accept that, are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S.-income-taxes-out-of-total-taxes.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png

but goodness knows we can't get the conservatives to understand it.

And S&P and Moody's as well. Maybe it isn't 'everyone else'?

You'll find that a vast majority of the population is willing to pay more taxes in order to pay down the debt

And nothing is stopping them from doing so. They can easily send in checks to the federal government to help make this happen. Would you like the information on how to do this?

Our federal debt has increased each and every year since the 70s and the era of the 'great society'. We have borrowed money every single year since then. And unfortuantely, no matter how much we talk about it, we still have no plan on how to actually pay back our debt. It's time to have that talk, not just business as usual.

The problem is that our current tax system punishes the poor. We 'tax the rich' in an insane class warfare that the left is engaged in, only to end up having it passed down to the poor. *23%* of everything that anyone pays is nothing but embedded taxes of those income and corporate taxes that the left thinks are hitting the rich hard, but only serve to hurt the poor. In their lip services to helping them, all they do is hurt them. And to fix it, they keep wanting to make it worse...

You could tax the top 1% of income earners in this country at 100% and still run a deficit. It's simply not enough... if we cut SPENDING, we could do it.

But the left would rather see a case where 100% of everything everyone made went to the government and then see everyone make about the same 'to be fair'. But it isn't. The reality of that is lost on progressives that don't understand the increase in risk, loss of family life, life choices, etc and how it plays a role. No, their goal is to punish the Forgotten Man...

In case you don't know who the Forgotten Man is, I can direct you to http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1654&chapter=108194&layout=html&Itemid=27

BTW, forgot the link on how to pay the government more if you want. https://pay.gov/paygov/

Now, we aren't talking about that, are we? You are talking about how to make others pay it I reckon...

Thanks for the clarification, Jonathan. I've never been in a financial position where I didn't need nearly every penny I had, and it is only recently that I have been able to have a few dollars to put into investments that have reasonable interest rates. My few investments are meager in comparison to yours and many others, and at this point in America's economy I could become "Chicken Little" and take my money out of the investments and put it into a few lower interest accounts a the bank, or maybe just put it in a jar and bury it in the backyard. But, I don't believe that America has come this far just to be brought to destruction by a handful of religious fanatics and idiots who support them. America and its people have been faced with much more serious situations than this in our history and survived. And that survival has made us stronger.

So I will leave my meager funds where they are, as my trust is in the American people, the real American people, not the Corporate Mafias, Koch Brothers and Big Oil leeches who the GOPTeaBags call "the American people" when trying to justifying their betraying America and skrewing its people to death. I believe in the integrity, intelligence and determination of the American people, who will survive and make America even stronger, as they have done many times before. And at the end of the day, my meager investment in America and its people will, IMHO, have been well invested, as every penny invested in America helps to give confidence in our economy, our country, and the American people.

I don't intend to abandon the ship because it is taking on some water during a storm, I'm going to grab a bucket and bail like H*ll, because as long as it is afloat there is no reason to jump ship and send it adrift when it can be repaired to proudly sail another day.

As for the process...I don't for one moment believe that most Americans want what the Tea Party has since proved that it wants, to over-through the the American government and turn America into a serfdom for their masters. The Tea Party and their GOP Borgs lied to the American people on every level in 2010, and have become so arrogant in their belief that they are in control of America and that the American people are nothing but sheep will continue to follow their bell that they no longer try to hide their real ambitions and intentions for America and its people. But, the majority of intelligent Americans are now truly aware of their unAmerican intentions and are going to stand against them and those who got people to vote them into office with lies and subterfuge of their real intentions. The GOPTeaBags think that because they fooled the people once they can continue to fool them, and while that may be true of some of the idiots who are of the same mental affliction as they are, the majority of Americans don't need to be beaten to a bloody pulp with a 4x6 before they see what is really happening and say enough is enough. WI is a very good example, and the true Americans in WI are determined to take back their state and their lives. And many other states are following their example.

America is at a crossroads at this time in more ways than political and economic issues. It is more than just about politics, economics or religion. It's about humanity, it is about human values, and how we as a people, and a country, value the lives of our people, the laws of our country that set the rules of how we treat our own people, as well as those of the rest of the world. You can not have a civilized country if every one runs way at the first sign of a problem. You fight the hard battles that need to be fought, and the negotiate a solution those that you can. But, without trust and faith in ourselves as a people, as a country, we can not be a great country or world leader, even if we had the most robust economy in the world.

This is my country, the land of my ancestors who also fought for their land and freedom against those who lied and took advantage of them before America was even a country. These are my people, my fellow Americans who's ancestors came from other countries to find a life of freedom here in America, many of whom put themselves in harms way and paid the ultimate sacrifice to ensure and protect the freedoms and rights of all Americans. And this is my home and that of my family. So, like many other Americans, I will not run. I will not hide. I am here for the long haul, and I will not go quietly into their dark night. They may take my money, they may try to take the wind from my sails, but, they can not take my spirit and belief in my country and its people.

Tink- VERY well put, very eloquent and 100% right on the nose! :)

Tink...

Well Said...Spot On...

Tink

Well personally I have had a lot of hostility to my presence in the country. Most of our employee's are fine, but some have gotten to the point of issuing death threats. Are they serious? I don't know, but they were uttered. Do I feel as though the atmosphere in this country are as comfortable now as they were in the past, hell no. They are worse and have been getting worse over the last 3 years that I have been here, and are most definitely worse the first time that I came to the US to go to school. This is not healthy, and it does take people like you to try and turn things around, because guess what, people around the world ARE taking notice. While the damage may not take shape for several years, it will come and if things don't turn around, the country will be facing a very long decline. I am not saying this to try and be negative, but to be realistic.

Thanks stormshadow and Rowdy. :-)

Tink-2285193

I hope everyday the repubs/teapubs have not destroyed this grand experiment we call Democracy...

Jonathan...I don't know what part of the US you are in, the company you work for, or why you may be getting death threats. But, the average people in America at not street gang members, thugs and deliberate hostile people, or like those who choose to live less than a civilized lifestyle. There are such types of people in all towns and cities everywhere in the world, not just here in the US. I am sure that even in Canada there are such groups of people, but, that does not mean that Canada and its people as a whole are the same kind of low-life. Nor does your experience reflect the integrity of America and its people as a whole.

It is true that the temperament of many Americans has changed since 2009 because of the hate, bigotry, and political and religious intolerance that has been inflicted upon America and its people by a radical, religious extremist faction, whose intention is to economically destroy America and its people and have been vigorously working to achieve success. Their actions against America and its people have already caused great suffering for millions of Americans, and millions more abroad, and action is being taken by the American people to prevent them taking full control of our government and thwart their achieving their goal. While there are some Americans who have embraced this hostile, anti-American faction, the majority of Americans have not, will not, and are taking actions to prevent them from taking away our rights and freedoms as well as control of our country. But, to say that this 'defense mood' is directed at any and everyone unjustly is unfair.

I am not a person who makes judgments of others, and certainly not without facts to base my opinion on, and there obviously is more to the situation you have experienced than you have shared here. I have never been to Canada, but, I do know a very large number of Canadian friends and colleagues who have lived in the US for many years, and none of them have ever stated they have had, or are having, the kind of seriously negative experience you describe here in the US. However, if you feel that your safety and well-being is threatened here in the US, then perhaps you would be wise to return to Canada until such time as you feel you will be safe here in America.

Best of luck to you.

Rowdy 11.47 - The Tea Party/GOPTeaBags can not take our Democracy unless we, the American people, hand it to them. And as long as there are Americans who truly believe in America and its people, our Democracy will live on.

The mighty Eagle is not faint of heart, and neither are the American people it represents.

Tink,

I am a foreign 'owner' of a company. (I am a minority owner, but I essentially run the company now as my business partner has largely retired).

The death threats were coming from certain extreme tea party supporting employee's that felt that they had more rights to own and operate the company over some foreigner (who has been an owner since the company was created). It isn't just that I am there, it is that I am 'taking over' their little fiefdom. Sometimes that happens when you are dealing with a small company.

The problem has been dealt with by selling off that part of the company so now they had to move to texas, which they are doubly pissed off with, in order to keep their job. (I live in the mid west). The thing is that I can defend myself quite well (well I could until I developed a herniated disc). If they actually did try to do anything to me, they would probably have ended up on the losing end of that fight. So I never felt that my safety has been threatened. It is the ATTITUDE that I was referring to. It isn't healthy for the future of the nation, which was my point.

And the change has been since 9/11, not 2009. I have noticed it since then. It has gotten MUCH worse since Obama was inaugurated.

As for the current employee's, which are the ones that we inherited from a company that we bought a few years ago to get into other lines of business, morale is up, business is up, profits from that part are up, their pay is up. They are happy. There were reasons for the attitudes, but I am not going to get into it. I shed that business this year, and life goes on.

Tink-2285193...The Tea Party/GOPTeaBags can not take our Democracy unless we, the American people, hand it to them. And as long as there are Americans who truly believe in America and its people, our Democracy will live on.

Just read an article in AlterNet.org about How the U.S. has crushed the youth movement in America and business/government has broken their spirit...Where are the protesters, the ones who these laws are going to effect years from now....Good article

Jonathan-2055273 - If the attitude is worse since Obama that is due to the bigoted, racist people how hate the idea of a black man being in the White Hose, fairly elected or not. Their Klu Klux Klan attitude and mixed with the anti-Islamic, homophobes, women haters and Evangelical radicals who hate anyone who is not of their religious beliefs, and other racial and ethnic hate monger groups have created a somewhat toxic attitude with specific sect of people here in America. But, that is not how all Americans feel. A very large portion of people here in America are foreign born or of foreign decent. The only real Americans here in America are the Native Americans, who have had their own struggles with prejudices and hate groups, and still do. There is no place in the world without some form of prejudice or bias unless you are alone on a deserted island. And even then then monkeys may not like the cut of your job and throw coconuts at you all the time.

If you have people in your employ that are causing problems then get rid of them. There are likely many of the other employees who would be grateful for it. As the owner of the company, there is no reason for you to be intimidated or threatened by employees who are feeding off your paychecks. There are a millions of people out of work who would be more than happy to have their job and care less about your origin. Remember that they need you, you don't need them. Let them eat from another feed trough if they can find one if they can find on that is not already empty.

I did get rid of them, I sold that part of the business. (I didn't sell it to get rid of them, it was a business decision, and in my mind a valid one. I was essentially taking over a business from my business partner, who is essentially only working part time now, and I had a decision to make, spend gobs of money on something that I didn't really have my heart in, or 'retask' the company to be something that I did, which is also going to involve spending gobs of money on. I made the choice to retask the company. Bought another company a couple of years ago at a good price; price being really low because it was unionized oddly enough; and am doing well in reinvigorating it. Yes things are tough, but no tougher than any other company is having in this economy)

As to the Obama reference, this has been building since 9/11. Yes it has gotten worse since Obama was elected, but the underlying hostility was there long before. This by the way is EXACTLY what bin Laden wanted. He wanted the west to turn on itself.

Rowdy - I would have to take exception to that statement about the youth of America. I am not seeing any malaise or indications lack of interest or intimidation in the youth in our area, nor what I see and hear around America. There has been a huge increase in the level of interest in what is happening in our country, disgust at the Tea Party and the GOPTeaBags, who are out to make the world an even harder place for our youth to live in, go to school, make a living and raise a family. The future is theirs and they know it, what is done now will affect them and their future and that of their children. So, they have a serious and dire interest in what is happening in America and to the American people, and they are making their voices heard. Perhaps not so much in protests, but, these young people are now masters for the Internet, and it now speaks louder and further than a Bull Horn.

The youth of America are not as willing to buy the BS that the Tea Party and GOPTeaBags are trying to shove down people's throats as some of their far less intelligent elders.

/Jonathan......I do not see Americans turning on themselves now since Obama was elected or , , only the target of the hate that has always been here has changed. But, that hate is no different than any other cities, states or countries since Cain and Able.

I am sorry for the problems being directed at you for whatever reason, and hope that you will find a place that is without prejudice and hate and feel safe to live in peace. I wish you will. :-)

Tink-2285193........The youth of America are not as willing to buy the BS that the Tea Party and GOPTeaBags are trying to shove down people's throats as some of their far less intelligent elders.

I certainly hope you are correct and it will show at the polls in 2012, because here in Fl. most of the youth voting or non voting can not name their own congressmen/women or senators for their district...but yes it is true they are masters of the internet...

rowdy:

people can show as much buyers remorse (or protest for even more of the same) as they want, but unless they get to the voting booth, it will be all for naught. We know the Radical Religious Right can get the vote out, but can the moderates? (I don't really care for the Radical Left either, but I don't really see a lot of them anyways).

Jonathan-2055273.....people can show as much buyers remorse (or protest for even more of the same) as they want, but unless they get to the voting booth, it will be all for naught. We know the Radical Religious Right can get the vote out, but can the moderates?

That has been the problem in Fla. and the country since voting began...Fla. does have a grassroots and get the vote out tenacity with the senior population...the folks who always vote....Youth not so much...

Again I look at this problem (low youth voter turnout) as the main reason Gov Scott was elected and the elections of Teabaggers in 2010....

I believe the Progressive movement is building in Fla.... Hope it continues, because we only have the Radical Right taking over in Fla. at this time...

I don't really care for the Radical Left either, but I don't really see a lot of them anyways

Um... Look in the mirror much or around at the people commenting on this page?

Rhine

I see the radical right outnumbering the radical left by about 20 to 1 actually.

Rowdy:

Well the irony is that it is the tea party that is pushing to kill social security, so the senior population are stabbing themselves in the back.

I'm not a member of the Tea Party but I have yet to see any evidence that they want to 'kill social security'. Alter it so that the younger have an alternate, non-ponzi scheme method of saving for their retirement with better than 1% return rates, yeah, but no plan has ever been talked about or introduced by anyone that didn't pay out existing and soon to be SS recipients.

Your outlandish claims and demonizing your opponents only goes to serve the interests of 'firing up your base' and building an echo chamber for yourself, if you wanted to actually communicate with those who are not already in your camp, you would be failing... Most sensible people see through the hyperbole and demagoguery.

#11.61..Jonathan-2055273....Well the irony is that it is the tea party that is pushing to kill social security, so the senior population are stabbing themselves in the back.

I live here and believe me that is something that Fla. seniors are very aware of.

Fact is that the tbagger phenomenon is pretty much over in Fla...with disgust and distain for the Tbaggers...

Seniors that I personal know that are rabid rightwing nuts are screaming the teabaggers @!$%#ed with SS and Medicare/Medicaid the three biggest socialist programs in the world and these rightwing nuts do like that at all and are not going to forget in Nov. 2012.....LOL...Good.

After all this drama the seniors won..No change to SS, Medicare/Medicaid...right now..Actually nothing changed, except no default and a new super committee..Go figure...

I have used my ignore button and it so nice to read honest sensible comments without a 24/7 info. commercial similar to a 3:00AM TV commercial and links to no where....Sooo nice...

rowdy:

The bigger, and longer term, issue is that the intra-surgence (on both sides, but mostly the republicans) is preventing the country from addressing the longer term structural issues that face the nation. It makes it even worse that this is being driven through hatred and anger, and not really though any sound principles.

Jonathan you say hatred and anger..I might add racism...

As of Jan 9th 2009, there has been no addressing anything of long term structural issues that face the nation..such as JOBS...

Sen McConnell's statement: The only job of the GOP is to make sure that President Obama is a one term President...It is the GOP's Manifesto....

Until that dysfunctional sentiment is gone absolutely nothing will function in Washington DC...

Repubs/teapubs avoid sound principles as a matter of Obstructionism..so the country and all Americans can count on more suffering...Oh wait no suffering for the 1-2% of the richest Americans that profit from sending our jobs overseas...

rowdy:

I think of racism is a rationale for hatred.

Jonathan...True...And so it is..Visibility of President Obama renders hatred into racism..

Unfortunately true for both of you- but it's also a very crappy mantra for those millions depserately seeking work and some tiny degree of stability in their lives. Knowing that the right is so much more concerned with ensuring their racist viewpoints obliterate a man who's in the WH merely for being "different" (matter of perception only mind you) is downright annoying.

rowdy:

Actually I would say it the other way around.

It is their racism that makes the hatred. Hatred usually has an underlying reason. It is the emotion, the racism is just the cause of that emotion.

Storm:

I agree, it does nothing to help the country. It just serves their ego and their sense of accomplishment that they feel when they put down Obama for no real reason, while the country burns in symbolic flames around them.

Jonathan..If the President were white, Hatred would apply...President Obama is black, hatred of his race applies to many....

They can and do exist separately and they can and do exist combined...The longer I live the more I see this in my state..

stormshadow....Knowing that the right is so much more concerned with ensuring their racist viewpoints obliterate a man who's in the WH merely for being "different" (matter of perception only mind you) is downright annoying.

Great point...Downright annoying is an understatement...Like I said the GOP's Manifesto is to ensure President Obama is a one term President...nothing else matters...nothing.

Can anyone imagine if the effort to make President Obama a one term President extended to the Jobs crisis, dear God there be no Job or Economic issues for the repub/teapubs to hold the country hostage...This has been a manufactured farce to defeat the President in 2012 by the GOP...

I agree wholeheartedly.. if ONLY those republicans had run on a platform of jobs jobs jobs!..

oh wait what??

You mean they DID?!?

ok then, in that case what the HELL are we doing worrying about every OTHER issue under the damn sun? Debt ceilings? "sharia law" taking us over somehow? and of course let's not forget Abortion abortion abortion, added to the union busting and voter disenfranchisements!

Have we seen enough damage already kids? Are we going to just sit back idly by and do NOTHING about this?

get the hell out and V O T E!

stormshadow

Besides the GOP/teabaggers lying about focusing on JOBS like a laser....

I want to know why the economy is not any better but in fact is actually worst since the repubs and teapubs got elected in 2010...

In 2009 the economy was getting out of the 2008 Bush Recession/Depression and then in 2010 elections, bang, more Epic Economic Failed Policies by the GOP/Teapubs...

Just asking how come the economy is tanking since the repubs/teapubs took office in 2010?...What have they done to our Country, besides wanting to destroy our government...Shameful....

Exactly.

This factoid bears repeating as often as necessary-

Number of bills passed with Pelosi as speaker- nearly 500

Number of bills passed with Boehner as speaker- 12!

What's wrong with this picture?

stormshadow......What's wrong with this picture?

Tea Party

exactly.. and truth be told- I honestly think even the repugs are scratching their heads going WTF were we thinking making deals with THESE screwballs?!?

Buyers remorse indeed..

2012 vote out as many as we can!

I sit here shaking my head A LOT wondering that very question...

It will be used as an excuse to further fleece working Americans and to protect the wealth of the powerful.

If the events being played out at this point were a book, it would have to be listed under Fiction, as most of the world would not believe it was a true that one faction of the American government would so openly and eagerly betray their own country, and try to destroy America and its people out of their own greed and lust for supreme power, and that of their Masters. The title of the book would clearly be, "The Unholy Beast From Within."

Just another way to fan the flames of ignorance for people who cannot think for themselves.

You are speaking of Liberals, arent you?

You are speaking of Liberals, arent you?

No Aint, I'm pretty sure he was speaking of braindead ditto heads.

I sit near a dittohead. Every so often he lets out a truly stupid sounding chuckle. This is usually an indication Rush is using hatespeech which dittoheads apparently find hilarious.

The other day one of the drones in the shipping department had his radio on as I walked through our warehouse. I realized that the Rush of recent vintage sounds a bit like Jim Jones. Ranting non-stop. Only you don't get the relief from the Kool-Aid at the end. I once monitored him for a project - for FIVE MONTHS! By the end I would have drank that cyanide Kool-Aid just to make him stop.

Imagine listening to anyone for four hours each weekday non-stop. Then imagine listening to an asinine blowhard for the same period! It is no wonder his followers are so screwed up in their thinking. No one should take this much time out of someones life.

4 hours a day X 5 days a week X 52 weeks a year = 1,040 hours a year. That is nothing less than an dangerous amount of time to absorb someone elses thinking. Of course even the most devoted dittoheads are absorbing only about 800 hours of this garbage a year. Still enough to turn your brain into a mushmelon.

Probably a good thing then that 1- Rush is starting to lose some degree of his "fanbase" aka zombies..lol

2- Good thing Glen Beck is no longer around to reinforce the BS that Flush spews daily.

I hadn't even thought about how long that idiot rants daily though.. and you're right 1040 hours a year of nonstop poison? (fact free of course).. a bit much for ANY diet..lol

beck is still on radio.

Not on my radio :) :)

No Aint, I'm pretty sure he was speaking of braindead ditto heads.

I am a she...but you got the rest of it right!

I have used the handle 'Tink' for many years on many various boards and newsgroup's, and I am amazed at how many people think I am a he. &;o)

My name could probably go either way...but with a name like Tink I would definitely assume female.

JustMe - Idunno...but, I just can't imagine how someone could see the name Tink and think of a burly guy on a Harley. But....these days...who knows? <:o)

Considering that President Obama is likely to use the 14th amendment to ignore the childish antics of our elected representatives if they fail to rasie the debt ceilng than I think your scenario is unlikely.

Not my scenario; I doubt if he wouldn't pay the service on the debt even if the debt ceiling was not raised so it is a non-argument to me. I was stating the hypothetical "if" he didn't direct payment on debt.

There would be enough legal grounds to impeach because of his failure to uphold the constitution which states our debts must be paid.

Just a quick civics point for you Libertarian. It is the job of Congress to make sure the bills get paid.

jwc2blue Awesome! Now, who was in control of congress when we ran a 'surplus'* and who was in control of congress when the current economic issues hit?

Who was in control of congress and could have averted much of the damage by relaxing the Mark to Market rules that constrained lending for 6 months and did so only after the new president took office? Who was in congress when everyone during an election tried to blame the economic woes on 'Glass Stegall' and then has since left that law in place?

Now, who was in control of congress when we ran a 'surplus'* and who was in control of congress when the current economic issues hit?

Because you apparently are having trouble following this simple conversation rhinehold, I'll try to explain it to you.

The topic (also called the subject of discussion) is about impeaching Obama if the government defaults.

In post number 18# (if you write it on your palm, you can scroll up and still remember what you were looking for) Libertarian y2k states; "There would be enough legal grounds to impeach because of his failure to uphold the constitution which states our debts must be paid."

In post #18.3, I responded that; "It is the job of Congress to make sure the bills get paid."

Read slowly now, this is where it gets tricky.

Because it's the job of Congress to make sure the bills get paid, there can't be any legal grounds to impeach the POTUS if the Congress fails to act.

In laymans terms, this means that your often disproven non-sequiter of a talking point has NOTHING to do with the conversation.

If you insist on being shown the error of your claim (not that you'll ever admit that you're WRONG!) refer to #19.1, #19.2, #19.3 and/or #19.4

LOL, hilarious. :)

So, the treasury department allocate money? they've been in violation of the constitution since May 16th when we hit the debt ceiling limit? The Executive branch isn't charged with executing the laws passed by congress?

It is indeed an interesting government you describe, and my attempt to show you the folly of your view was met with one of the funniest and ardent attempts at deflection that I've seen in a while...

That is the most simplistic viewpoint that I've ever seen here on the 'vine. The two largest causes of any increase in the national debt have both come from George W. Bush: 1) Waging two wars OFF the books, each of which have cost us several TRILLIONS of dollars, and 2) the Bush Tax cuts (of 2001(?)), which have cost the treasury well over a trillion dollars of lost income. The simple fact is that Obama put the costs of the two wars where they should have been in the first place: ON THE BOOKS. If they had been there in the first place, the debate about financing these two wars would have taken place 8-9 years ago, not now. Your simplistic approach to this subject displays a look once - no think approach to debating a subject, which is never a good thing to do. You have shown absolutely no background to buttress your position, just numbers. One must loook at WHY the increases occurred, not just that they occurred.

Simply unbelievable........(with apologies to Robert Palmer......)

I agree CP...plus no actual 'sources' are linked to look at the 'statistics', nor to see what 'math' (calculations) and criteria was used to come up with those numbers...

Another thing that Mr. Ed conveniently ignores is that each subsequent president since Ronald Reagan has presided over record increases in deficits and, therefore, the debt. (Bill Clinton was the lone exception, as he reduced deficits over the course of his presidency.)

There is an undeniably positive correlation between tax cuts and deficit levels. Reagan began the era of giant government deficit spending and big deficits.

Never in the history of modern economics has fiscal austerity helped a recessionary economy.

Congress is now quite stupid.

Your argument, sir, is laughably incorrect and inaccurate.

As any student of American government can tell you, NO party controls Congress without 66 firm votes in the Senate. Without those votes, the opposition party can filibuster any proposed legislation. A simple majority in the Senate IS NOT control.

Also, to control the budget would require that same party to also control the White House. The President can veto any legislation presented to him by Congress. If the Democrats controlled the Congress as you allege from 2007 to 2011, they would have required not only the 66 votes in the Senate to invoke closure of debate (ie, shut down filibusters), but also a 2/3 majority in the House to overide GBW's veto. Thus if the Republicans were so tied to fiscal conservation, why didn't GBW veto all that spending and deficit creating legislation passed by the Congress, which BTW, the Democrats could not control, as they had neither 66 votes in the Senate or a 2/3 majority in the House with which to overide a Presidential veto.

Or is it that you have conviently ignored that the Congress, in which the Democrats had a simple majority agreed with the Republican President GBW that it was necessary to run a defict to institute various programs like TARP to preserve the American economy from sliding from a recession into a depression. You are aware, I hope, that the Prsident proposes the budget to the House, right? So that the Democrats in Congress were approving spending programs on TARP, Plan D Medicare, Iraq and Afghanistan, that GBW proposed? I would suggest you take a look at the President's Budget (PRESBUD) as submitted to Congress and what was passed in the funding bills. I think you will be surprised (I know you will) at how similar the final funding bills presented to GBW by a Democratic Congress in 2007 through 2008 for FY2008 and FY2009 look to the budget presented by GWb.

BTW, you also don't understand the budget process. The Fiscal Year starts 1 Oct. GBW was inaugerated in Jan 2001. The 2001 FY was already four months gone. The FY2001 budget was Clinton's budget, just as the FY2009 budget was GBW's budget. A President's first budget is for the coming Fiscal Year (for GBW FY02, for Obama, FY09). A President can often make minor changes in discretionary funding or he can get Congress to pass supplemental funding acts, but he pretty much lives with the budget he inherits from his predecessor.

So I suggest you go back and rethink your argument, as it is to simplistic to represent reality.

BTW, to maintain accuracy in this debate, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were in the supplemental funding which is included in the balance sheet and is why (along with Medicare Plan D) GBW ran a defict budget for all eight years of his Presdiency. The cost ran from $75B in FY2002 and peaked at $170B in FY2008, with a total at around 1.3 trillion, not "several trillions".

TY exit for your great post.

(Bill Clinton was the lone exception, as he reduced deficits over the course of his presidency.)

Not according to this analsyis

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

It's clear to me that the Dems don't really care about the deficit today and neither party cared much about it in the past. The dems mostly seem really pissed that they didn't get to run up the deficit themselves not that there is a deficit. When the returned to power the only thing that was clear was they wanted to make up for lost time and outdo the spending done by the GOP.

However there was at time when some folks wanted to do something about it. This article discusses the idea that a balanced budget is a bad idea whose time has come again.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/gramm-rudman-a-bad-idea-whose-time-has-come-again/3805/

Now the real question is not whose fault the deficit is but what are you going to do about it?

So what are you going to do about it?

Oliver

Whether the clinton administration achieved a balanced budget is semantics, that he lowered the deficit is fact.

(it is only semantics because the GOP love to use the SS Surplus when it suits them, but demands that it be removed from the figures when it suits them as well).

exltcusa

Your post was wonderful.!!!!!!

Everyone knows that traditionally liberals like to spend. They deny it but it is in line with their ideology. They believe in a larger centralized and caring government. Hence the money spent. They want programs for the lower income or minority groups. They want industry controlled better; they see corporations as being inherently evil. They strive for a more equal distribution of wealth between the haves and the have-nots. They encourage tax increases on the wealthy and tax credits for the poor.

Thats liberal ideology. Own it. It requires increased revenue and increased spending. I am not making a judgement on wrong or right. But it is disingenuous for the left to always claim to not be more inclined to spend and history does back this. And it isn't on the POTUS. It is on the congress. Progressives are not fooling anyone when they say they are for spending cuts and historically neutral on increased spending. Anyone not in their 30's knows better.

It is true that cooperation with republicans were necessary. They didn't have super majorities and the white house so they couldn't ram through anything fillibuster proof. But we all know that deals were made and as long as the old school GOP got their pet spending requests they went along with it. They could always point the finger at the democrats for an out. No longer. They are not being allowed to escape with "what could we do, the dems were in control; we had to compromise". And now that they are not doing what they did to earn them co-owners of our debt issue they are "obstructing and non-compromising".

Do you know why your statement about liberals is overly simplistic? Liberals are able to recognize the reality of a situation and are willing to make the moves necessary to fix it.

Something that seems to be sorely lacking in our current crop of conservative brethren.

exltcusa - 19.4 - Thank you for setting the record straight. I appreciate the detailed information.

"Impeach the President for something YOU GUYS were holding up because you went around stomping your feet at tax increases on the wealthy?! Un-frickin' believable."

Might be unbelievable but that is their way of thinking. Go to any fact check site and see how their "thinking" jibes with facts.

Public sentiment towards Republicans is now at an all-time low, lower than the Nixon fiasco. Roughly 80% of people surveyed are blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis. Only 20% think the President has responsibility. So we have 90 freshmen Republicans holding the entire government hostage with the "My way or the highway" policies? Sound a little fascist? It'd be one thing if they controlled the senate and the house but they don't. Thirty+ Republican senators have agreed that increasing revenues is a worthy idea.

Impeaching the president for wanting to protect the American financial system from being hijacked by these freshmen? They will all be voted out in 2012 and they know it.

BULL@!$%#...BAGGER BUBBA...BTW Welcome to Newsvine see you just joined this month..

Rowd, trust me, hit the ! button, click ignore, my friend

Sweet Tea-3797259's account has already been deleted, go figure.

Wow, that was fast!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess Sue asked too hard of question, LMAO, can't help it,

But what do think about King and this article?

You go Sue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YELLOW DOG D.

LOL....I agree....Will Do, friend...Thanks

MJL-3

Yes that was fast, friend...You Go Sue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....100% Spot On...

Eoin-899252........You should be more afraid of what the People of the United States will do to you if you don't get off your asses and Get the God Dam Job Done!

U Think

It's still all about the Pledge..

I'd be happy to tell Grover where he can STICK that stupid pledge!

SIDEWAYS!!

stormshadow........I'd be happy to tell Grover where he can STICK that stupid pledge!

SIDEWAYS!!

You me and a overwhelming amount of Americans....

Overwhelming amount? If that were the case then the polling numbers would be different and Nordquist wouldn't have any 'power' would he? The media would just simply ignore him.

Yes overwhelming amount...every middle-class and working-class American, Democratic Party Members and some GOP Members:

Thirty-four Senate Republicans walked nonchalantly across that line, voting to move forward on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that would repeal the ethanol subsidies.

Norquist states ending the tax breaks is equivalent to a tax increase and therefore a violation of The Pledge.........Norquist has been vicious in his recent talks on Coburn, charging that his amendment means he "lied his way into office" and is breaking the pledge.

Basically Sen. Coburn has given Norquist the Bronx Cheer, and Norquist deserves it...Good

According to one poll, I can point to others that suggest differently. Tell me, what poll was it you are pointing to so I can examine how it came to that conclusion?

For example, this one:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 45% trust Republicans more when it comes to handling economic issues, while 35% put more trust in Democrats. Nineteen percent (19%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Shows you the question wording which can be examined. Or, are you suggesting that I am to just 'take your word for it'?

Rhinehold, not to step in the middle of this Sue-scuffle you're embroiled in, but there's a difference between asking about a party's handling of a specific crisis, and asking a more general question about how much you trust a party to handle broad issues. Your poll really doesn't contradict the one Sue presented at all. If anything, it shows that the GOP is going against their traditionally strong economic image on this issue, and potentially hurting themselves.

Yes, I wasn't posting it to counter the poll, but to show an example of how to post the data so informed people can make an educated valuation.

And yes, to tweak Sue a bit.

You said you could point to others that suggested differently, and then failed to do that. So if you weren't trying to counter the poll, it was awfully strange of you to claim you could counter the poll, and then provide a poll that didn't counter it, and then defend that statement by claiming you were never trying to counter it. We need to play your comments in slow-motion just to see them; they're all a blur from moving around so much.

At any rate, citations are always a good idea. At the same time, it's not that hard to find the answer in this case. Changing the subject to a condescending lesson on citing sources isn't really helping your side on the issue at hand. It just makes you look evasive.

Ah, so looking at the information I can see what was originally stated isn't the same as the data suggests.

The question is 'Do you approve of the way the Republicans are handling the negotiations'. That is not the same thing as suggesting that the reason that they disapprove of the handling is because they don't want to raise revenue (taxes). If you look at the data, many republicans disapprove, do you really think that it is becaiuse of taxes OR do you think they want the Republicans to be HARDER and not put it on the table?

As a result, my poll link had as much to do with the original assertion as the one you provided.

(btw, a link to the data http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_debt_071811.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody) would have been more appreciative than a 'google link...

GALLUP has other ideas though:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx

Methods at link.

Sue, I have already rebutted your polling and the assertion that you said it meant in 26.11.

The question is 'Do you approve of the way the Republicans are handling the negotiations'. That is not the same thing as suggesting that the reason that they disapprove of the handling is because they don't want to raise revenue (taxes).

Now you're just batting around semantics. I can see your interpretation of the text, but you should really take a step back from your own ideas more often. Sue said:

last week 71% disapproved of the GOP/TP's handling of this crisis which is refusal to raise revenues.

Which could be interpreted as, "71% disapprove of raising revenues" as you interpreted it. Or, "71% of people disapprove of the GOP's handling of it. The GOP's handling of it involves refusing to raise revenues." The first is making a direct (and unsupported) causal link, while the second is making a statistical statement and then stating a related piece of information to formulate an argument.

I won't argue for which one Sue meant, of course, but this illustrates why it's important to think critically about how a person may have meant their statement, at least before lambasting them for it.

As far as the "overwhelming majority" in the original assertion? That part is provably true.

The Gallup poll you linked shows it as an either/or, but that's not being argued by the Democrats, so it's a moot point and a strawman. They're arguing for spending cuts and tax increases, while the Republicans are standing ground and refusing to compromise with only spending cuts. Now with that in mind, let's look at the data again.

The Gallup poll -- your own source, mind you -- has the split at 80/20. Only 20% favor restricting the solution only to spending cuts, which is the cause of the GOP deadlock. That means 80% of Americans favor at least some tax increases, against the GOP deadlock. That's what I'd call an overwhelming majority, wouldn't you?

(btw, a link to the data http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_debt_071811.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody) would have been more appreciative than a 'google link...

The Google link was to show how easy the information was to find. You know what they say about teaching a man to fish.

Really? And how could you have "rebutted" my polling in #26.11 when I didn't post the actual poll until ... #26.12 ... hmmm.

Because I already found and linked to the actual poll previously.