Obama Announces Deal To Raise Debt Limit, Cut Spending

[Jingthing]

Mike Lee. Rand Paul. You are my heroes. Like to ditch the 2 libs Senators from Colorado & go back to being like out neighbors Utah & OK - staunch core values Conservatives. Lets send the propeller heads back to wherever. We can defund NPR & Planned Parenthood today. That endowment for the Arts too. That's fine when you are swimming in dough. Unfortunately our leaders in Washington have spent us into the poor house.

Your heroes are destructive nihilists.

Those named things are like a piece of dust on a crab louse compared to the entire budget. Typically far right wing tripe and focus on super tiny details that the far right considers too liberal. Who are you fooling? To fix the debt/budget with cuts only and without revenue changes is IMPOSSIBLE without gutting the social programs. Many tp people are OPEN about that and WANT that. Didn't you get the memo?

Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

many Americans consider me a wild lefty because I have supported universal health care all my adult life

I have news for you. Many Americans consider you a wild lefty because they have read or heard your wild lefty rhetoric. Your support for Universal health care has little to do with it.

[koheesti]

The vast majority of Americans are CENTER RIGHT. Not tea party and not liberal. Don't assume the center right is supporting the radical right wing extremist nihilist tea party! That is a huge stretch and simply false.

I can guarantee who the overwhelming vast majority of Center Right voters would vote for if given the choice between a Tea Party Candidate and Obama in 2012.

Hopefully it will be good news that the tea party has come out of the closet as a movement that will use extremely ruthless "negotiating tactics" (in other words, NO negotiating, do it our way 100 percent or we'll blow the world economy up!) and the majority of Americans will take notice and get passionate about stopping this dangerous faction.

Ironically, this is the very attitude that Obama and the Dem super majorities in Congress displayed during the passing of Obamacare which led directly to the rise of the Tea Party in the first place.

[Jingthing]

Ironically, this is the very attitude that Obama and the Dem super majorities in Congress displayed during the passing of Obamacare which led directly to the rise of the Tea Party in the first place.

You must be joking. Leftist Americans got almost NOTHING they wanted in Obamacare! We didn't even get the public option. It's hard to even talk to you as you don't seem to face obvious reality.

[Credo]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

[koheesti]

To fix the debt/budget with cuts only and without revenue changes is IMPOSSIBLE without gutting the social programs. Many tp people are OPEN about that and WANT that.

I agree.

What I think we don't agree on is the "revenue changes" part. I'm guessing you are for raising tax rates on the tiny percentage of wealthy people? I'm for laws and incentives to increase business activity which leads to more jobs which leads to more tax revenue from both individuals and business. Then there is no need to "gut" social programs - but we should still be able to revert back to spending levels of a few years ago by cutting across the board without causing much pain.

BTW - could you define what you mean by "gutting"?

Does that mean cutting x-% from previous budgets? (ex; Next year's budget will be 10% less than the previous year)

Or does that mean increasing their future budgets by a smaller percentage than planned? (ex; Next year's budget will increase by only 10% instead of 20% - "a 50% cut!!!") - Because this is what BOTH parties classify as "cuts" and it's bullshit.

[Ulysses G.]

To be honest, if screwing rich people out of their money would solve our problems, I would probably be all for it, but screwing rich people out of their money really would not help all that much.

[koheesti]

Ironically, this is the very attitude that Obama and the Dem super majorities in Congress displayed during the passing of Obamacare which led directly to the rise of the Tea Party in the first place.

You must be joking. Leftist Americans got almost NOTHING they wanted in Obamacare! We didn't even get the public option. It's hard to even talk to you as you don't seem to face obvious reality.

And who does America have to thank for that? Blue Dog Democrats.

Proof that the Republicans had no part in Obamacare is that there was no tort reform included. Because the Trial Lawyers Assoc of America (who changed their name a couple years ago for obvious reasons) donate almost exclusively to Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000065).

I'm just pointing out that the Dems' arrogant unchecked spending the first year of Obama's admin gave rise to the Tea Party.

Maybe now there will be a backlash from the American people to the "terrorist activities" of the Tea Party and they will create a new grass roots movement of their own. They can call it the Tax & Spend Party. Oh, wait....

[koheesti]

To be honest, if screwing rich people out of their money would solve our problems, I would probably be all for it, but screwing rich people out of their money really would not help all that much.

That's an interesting point. I'm sure a lot of people would be for all kinds of things - IF THEY WOULD SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM. Unfortunately, none of the solutions put forth will do that.

[Scott]

One off-topic post has been removed.

Please stay on-topic.

[Steely Dan]

Another democracy committing suicide. Just facilitating the tragedy of the commons really.

http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=19454

Now there's a coincidence; it was only yesterday I was reading about the fall of the Roman empire. Another good read is an excellent book called 'This time it's different', which chronicles 8 centuries of financial defaults including defaults by inflation. To deny default by inflation counts is like saying 'I didn't have sexual relations with that woman' as a certain U.S president once stated.

http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf

[snarky66]

I would refer you to post #125.

[koheesti]

Wake up call?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/2011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_print.html

Standard & Poor's announced Friday night that it has downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time, dealing a symbolic blow to the world's economic superpower in what was a sharply worded critique of the American political system.

Lowering the nation's rating to one notch below AAA, the credit rating company said "political brinkmanship" in the debate over the debt had made the U.S. government's ability to manage its finances "less stable, less effective and less predictable." It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings "fell short" of what was necessary to tame the nation's debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

Edited August 6, 2011 by koheesti

[Jingthing]

Tea party UNAMERICAN. Spoken by a very well respected commentator. So what's the difference between UNAMERICAN and TRAITOR?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/zakaria-the-tea-partys-un-american-behavior/

Wolf Blitzer: Fareed, you have written the cover story on the new issue of TIMEmagazine, The Great American Downgrade: Why the Debt Crisis Has Hurt Growth and Our Position in the World. Let me read a line from the article, because it's very, very poignant - controversial I should say as well.

"People have to cooperate for anything to get done. That is why the Tea Party's insistence on holding the debt ceiling hostage in order to force its policies on the country - the first time the debt ceiling has been used this way - was so deeply un-American."

You're getting some feedback on that, some reaction. "Un- American"?

Fareed Zakaria: I'll explain why.

First, understand how unprecedented it was. The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. It has never been used this way, essentially as blackmail. The Democrats did not use it during the Vietnam War. It was not used this way during civil rights legislation.

So nobody has ever held a country hostage and said, 'If you don't pass our policies, we'll blow up the economy, we'll blow up the credibility of the United States.'

The reason I say it's un-American, Wolf, is because the American system - unlike European parliamentary systems - is built on shared powers and overlapping authority. No one is in control in America.

There's the president, there's the Senate, there's the House of Representatives, the state governments. And the founding fathers designed it that way because they wanted there to be an effort to create policies through compromise, through consensus.

So if you take the position that it's your way or the highway, that you will literally not give an inch, what you're doing is really against the spirit of the American republic - against the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted.

Bravo Fareed! Like I said before, I see the tea party as currently a bigger threat to America than Al Queda. Keep in mind that Al Queda is currently in a weak position though.

[venturalaw]

Ironically, this is the very attitude that Obama and the Dem super majorities in Congress displayed during the passing of Obamacare which led directly to the rise of the Tea Party in the first place.

You must be joking. Leftist Americans got almost NOTHING they wanted in Obamacare! We didn't even get the public option. It's hard to even talk to you as you don't seem to face obvious reality.

No, you must be joking.

Reality is that the Dems were in control of the legislative and executive branches of the government. So whose fault is it that they "got almost NOTHING they wanted in Obamacare!"? Not the Republicans.

Remember the infamous line by your genius Pelosi? "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Certain inspiration for the creation of the Tea Party.

Think about it.

[chuckd]

Tea party UNAMERICAN. Spoken by a very well respected commentator. So what's the difference between UNAMERICAN and TRAITOR?

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/zakaria-the-tea-partys-un-american-behavior/

Wolf Blitzer: Fareed, you have written the cover story on the new issue of TIMEmagazine, The Great American Downgrade: Why the Debt Crisis Has Hurt Growth and Our Position in the World. Let me read a line from the article, because it's very, very poignant - controversial I should say as well.

"People have to cooperate for anything to get done. That is why the Tea Party's insistence on holding the debt ceiling hostage in order to force its policies on the country - the first time the debt ceiling has been used this way - was so deeply un-American."

You're getting some feedback on that, some reaction. "Un- American"?

Fareed Zakaria: I'll explain why.

First, understand how unprecedented it was. The debt ceiling has been raised 78 times since 1960. It has never been used this way, essentially as blackmail. The Democrats did not use it during the Vietnam War. It was not used this way during civil rights legislation.

So nobody has ever held a country hostage and said, 'If you don't pass our policies, we'll blow up the economy, we'll blow up the credibility of the United States.'

The reason I say it's un-American, Wolf, is because the American system - unlike European parliamentary systems - is built on shared powers and overlapping authority. No one is in control in America.

There's the president, there's the Senate, there's the House of Representatives, the state governments. And the founding fathers designed it that way because they wanted there to be an effort to create policies through compromise, through consensus.

So if you take the position that it's your way or the highway, that you will literally not give an inch, what you're doing is really against the spirit of the American republic - against the spirit of what the founding fathers wanted.

Bravo Fareed! Like I said before, I see the tea party as currently a bigger threat to America than Al Queda. Keep in mind that Al Queda is currently in a weak position though.

JT:

You do not raise your bargaining position by citing such sources as Fareed Zakaria, Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi.

What you are doing is equivalent to me using Glen Beck as a source of my beliefs and then expecting you to sign off on them. I personally do not agree with anything he stands for so I disregard his ideas.

Using a less biased source is something you might consider for future debates. Your current sources are laughable.

[Jingthing]

JT:

You do not raise your bargaining position by citing such sources as Fareed Zakaria, Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi.

What you are doing is equivalent to me using Glen Beck as a source of my beliefs and then expecting you to sign off on them. I personally do not agree with anything he stands for so I disregard his ideas.

Using a less biased source is something you might consider for future debates. Your current sources are laughable.

Blitzer was just the interviewer. Comparing Fareed Zakaria or Nancy Pelosi to Glenn Beck who is certifiably insane is beyond the pale. You just showed your level with that one. Many mainstream people think the same as Fareed on that one. Many people feel the tea party has overplayed the political support they imagine they have. Refusing to negotiate from their minority position with threats to derail the global economy is correctly called a kind of terrorism, by MANY very mainstream people. The truth you can't handle is that the tea party is extremely far right of mainstream, and their tactics are completely unacceptable. Hopefully we can make them pay.

Views

Zakaria self-identifies as a "centrist",[8] though he has been described variously as a political liberal,[9][10] a conservative,[11] or a moderate.[12] George Stephanopoulos said of him in 2003, "He’s so well versed in politics, and he can’t be pigeonholed. I can’t be sure whenever I turn to him where he’s going to be coming from or what he’s going to say."[13] Zakaria wrote in February 2008 that "Conservatism grew powerful in the 1970s and 1980s because it proposed solutions appropriate to the problems of the age", adding that "a new world requires new thinking".[14] He supported Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign and also for president. In January 2009 Forbes referred to Zakaria as one of the 25 most influential liberals in the American media.[9] Zakaria has stated that he tries not to be devoted to any type of ideology, saying "I feel that's part of my job... which is not to pick sides but to explain what I think is happening on the ground. I can't say, 'This is my team and I'm going to root for them no matter what they do.'"

wiki Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

JT:

You do not raise your bargaining position by citing such sources as Fareed Zakaria, Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pelosi.

What you are doing is equivalent to me using Glen Beck as a source of my beliefs and then expecting you to sign off on them. I personally do not agree with anything he stands for so I disregard his ideas.

Using a less biased source is something you might consider for future debates. Your current sources are laughable.

You just showed your level with that one.

Yes, a superior level.

[Jingthing]

Fareed is gonna be on the no fly list soon.

Is that some kind of Islamophobic thing, mate?

In 2007, Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines named him one of the 100 leading public intellectuals in the world.

wiki Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[Scott]

This thread is getting a little bit too personal. Let's keep it to the topic and the topic is about whose journalist has bigger gonads.

[Jingthing]

Scott, I quoted Fareed directly about the topic and then was attacked that Fareed is not a credible source. So what choice did I have but to show he is a VERY credible source?

[Scott]

OK, you are welcome to discuss your choice of journalists, however, my point was that it seems that things are getting a little personal.

Let's stick as closely to the topic at hand and avoid getting too personal with each other.

The thread is about the US Debt; it's not about any individual poster.

[Wallaby]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

Yes I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself with all the moaning about the US changing the health care system to actually help those that can't afford it. Changing a little toward a system we, and other countries wouldn't change for the world.

[Credo]

I always thought democratic governments were there to help as many people as possible. Not just the rich, the wannabe rich and the 'when I am rich, I won't have to pay taxes' crowd.

I have no trouble in cutting spending, but there needs to be a safety net under the dangerous acts at the circus.

[Jingthing]

I see the health care issue as directly related to the budget/debt/competitiveness. Obviously it would be deeply beneficial to America in every way if all citizens could have equal access to high quality, COST EFFECTIVE health care. Healthier people, healthier workers, diseases found SOONER to avoid major costs and millions of early deaths, lower percentage of national wealth spent on health care. Obviously, only possible with a NATIONALIZED, yes SOCIALIZED health care system. Obamacare is NOTHING like that, doesn't provide full access, doesn't address COST EFFECTIVENESS in any way. It's a mess. The left and right agree on that. But the only answer is UNIVERSAL single payer health care. Yes, I know a pipe dream in socialist phobic America. So the USA will go even more broke plus millions will die early for no good reason.

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing. Done properly, as in Canada, you can actually get both -- massive cost savings PLUS massively increased access and better overall outcomes.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[venturalaw]

I always thought democratic governments were there to help as many people as possible. Not just the rich, the wannabe rich and the 'when I am rich, I won't have to pay taxes' crowd.

I have no trouble in cutting spending, but there needs to be a safety net under the dangerous acts at the circus.

And of course there is the crowd that requires the following be provided to those in need for free!:

Birth Control pills that cost $9.00/month for generics

Day-After Chemical Abortion Pills

All mechanical Birth Control Devices

Breast Pumps

Annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer.

Diabetes testing during pregnancy

Counseling on domestic violence

It certainly makes sense that everyone chip in to pay for the above. Oh, wait, I forgot. Not everyone, just the evil super-wealthy. That's the ticket. Punish achievement. It's, after all, what's fair, right?

[snarky66]

But of course prices for health care under Obama will skyrocket.

That's why we need 40% of the people to pay for the 60% of deadbeats.

[venturalaw]

I see the health care issue as directly related to the budget/debt/competitiveness. Obviously it would be deeply beneficial to America in every way if all citizens could have equal access to high quality, COST EFFECTIVE health care. Healthier people, healthier workers, diseases found SOONER to avoid major costs and millions of early deaths, lower percentage of national wealth spent on health care. Obviously, only possible with a NATIONALIZED, yes SOCIALIZED health care system. Obamacare is NOTHING like that, doesn't provide full access, doesn't address COST EFFECTIVENESS in any way. It's a mess. The left and right agree on that. But the only answer is UNIVERSAL single payer health care. Yes, I know a pipe dream in socialist phobic America. So the USA will go even more broke plus millions will die early for no good reason.

Bottom line, everyone cares about money, but the left cares much more about the value of human lives, including the POOR, than the right wing. Done properly, as in Canada, you can actually get both -- massive cost savings PLUS massively increased access and better overall outcomes.

The concept that is never addressed by the Dems is that opening up competition among all insurance companies will drive down the costs much more effectively. Stop requiring that health insurance be purchased within each State. Let all compete. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. That will never work. We must have an 'effective-government-run' (what an oxymoron) system.

[Credo]

Because of a pre-existing condition from a childhood disease, I could never get health care. I had rheumatic fever and as a result a heart murmur. I had the disease when I was 12, by the time I was 20, the heart murmur had completely disappeared. Insurance was routinely rejected. Forty + years later, I have never had a complication or problem related to it.

I would be happy if insurance companies would have been mandated to cover me.

But enough about me and thousands of other Americans.

[koheesti]

Yes, Obama and those Democrats are horrible people. They will bring the once richest, most powerful nation to its knees with a silly idea like health care. Those poorer people should not be allowed health care. America doesn't need healthy people to fight wars anyway.

Nasty ol' Democrats. The sooner they get rid of them, the sooner another country can be invaded. That, by the way, will help the economy a lot.

Yes I'm having a quiet chuckle to myself with all the moaning about the US changing the health care system to actually help those that can't afford it. Changing a little toward a system we, and other countries wouldn't change for the world.

If we're lucky, the situation will get to the point where we need to cut our military budget to where certain other countries with great healthcare systems will have to start spending their own money on their own defense for a change instead of relying on the US to deter any potential threats with security guarnatees. In parts of Europe and the Pacific Rim they have been able to spend on social programs because the United States has been providing/paying for their defense. Of course, they don't feel the need because they don't feel threatened. Nevermind that the reason they don't feel threatened is because the world's top military power by far is providing security guarantees. I say, let's cut these countries loose and let them take care of themselves for a change. Let Japan and Australia check the Chinese and the Germans/French/English worry about Russian bullying in Europe. That'll carve a good chunk out of the military budget.