The Market Ticker ® – Commentary on The Capital Markets
Posted 2011-07-13 08:32
by Karl Denninger
in Politics

Democrats: The Party of Public Frauds

If you were wondering if the alleged Biden “$2 trillion” in spending cuts are real, they’re not:

“How much does the Biden plan actually cut from next year’s discretionary spending budget?” the Kentucky Republican asked the room.

$2 billion. Not trillion, billion.

In other words, the entire claim of the Democrats and the so-called “Biden plan” is a fraud.

Skyrocket
Check!
Belt to strap it around his waist
Check!
Roller skates
Check!

And President Obama goes “Meep-Meep!”

In the first place no debt default will take place. There is more than enough income expected to pay for that by a very wide margin. SS and Medicare eat about half of what we will receive or $100 billion. Debt service is some $29 billion. That leaves money for the military and a VERY lean diet for all the rest of the government.

If Obama fails to pay granny her Social Security that is HIS choice. He will not be forced to make that choice since he has many many others available.

Giving Obama the keys to the debt limit is one of the most damnfoolish things I’ve heard out of Congress and our collection of super-rinos.

{+_+}

These cuts would be of his choosing alone

Total despicable abdication of Confessional authority.

McConnell announces fallback plan: Let’s give Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling himself

Now he sounds like the Dali Lama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303678704576442231815463502.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

r keller on July 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Far be it from me to challenge the WSJ‘s thesis, but aren’t there two hostages here–the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget? And really, shooting either of them isn’t the point–it’s holding them, well-fed, in a fully disclosed location, because they have all the money. Of course they’ll be freed–each of them. But while in captivity beyond certain deadlines, Barry and Tim have some prioritizing and allocating to do. In fact, is it a stretch to view the debt ceiling as simply an alternative to the budget, as a partial shut-down device?

Budget for all previous presidents. 96.1 trillion.

Budget and spending for Obama doesn’t come close …

Monkei on July 12, 2011 at 4:55 PM

You are getting “budget” and the debt deficit confused, poor boy. There had been NO budget since the dems took over Congress, and Oclueless came to office. Learn the difference…

They are forcing The One to be an adult instead of just acting like one.

Socialism never works.

But they need scapegoats and fresh ones all the time. (Mixing metaphors) Now they will have more rope.

1. Seal the border.

2. 10% across the board Federal Spending cuts.

When McConnell gets back from the White House Worship of the DOTUS can someone pass this along?

And as for Boehner and McConnell WHAT HAVE either of them accomplished since January besides shutting down the Conservatives?

Profane terms fill my mind to describe the GOP.

rlyle on July 12, 2011 at 7:46 PM

You’re a joke, dude.

r keller on July 12, 2011 at 8:15 PM

rkeller, the more you post on this subject and the more links you produce from the GOP’s corporate lobbyists, the more you convince me that the McConnell proposal is a sellout! Let’s go through some facts:

1. Wall Street, mostly Obama’s backers, want the debt limit increase. The same guys that brought us TARP (remember the same “the sky is falling” mantra?) are behind this push to have the limit increased.

2. McConnell could care less about government expansion – hello! He is the chief of the BIG GOVT. RINOs. Remember how he fought against the ban on earmarks?

3. McConnell’s proposal will remove any last leverage the GOP House majority possesses – and ALL for what? Some pipedream that Obama will be blamed for any subsequent debt limit increase and therefore lose election?

Give me a break! The same media that hounded GW Bush on the Iraq war posting a daily counter on military deaths, which mysteriously vanished when Obama came to power? The same media that accused Bush of a bad economy when unemployment was less than 5% (oh the good old days…) while talking of “unexpected” outcomes in the Obama era?

You are politically naive if you think this will work.

rlyle on July 12, 2011 at 7:46 PM wrote:

You seem to have all the answers. What office are you running for in 2011? How are you seizing the initiative in your town, your district, your state? How specifically are you putting the Dems on the defense?

Wow! I must have touched a nerve…LOL.

I’m working hard all right as a Tea Partier but my focus is not only Dems… but squishy RINOs like your beloved Boehner and McConnell! They are a major part of the problem and never part of the solution. And don’t make me laugh about putting Dems on the defense? You think THEY are putting Obama and his band of radical Dems on the defense? They take butter knives to a gun fight and want us to applaud them?

So, when you talk about who we should let anywhere near to leadership, let us know how you’ve changed your town, your district, and your state.

rlyle on July 12, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I know about a couple “rubes” (does Palin ring a bell?) who did a great job changing their town, district, and state. But our “overlords”, who you are shilling for, say I better not support her in case she runs for the Presidency. If Boehner and the other dinosaurs are NOT prepared to lead (I know, it must be so hard… /sarc), they should step aside and give us rubes the chance instead of fighting to hold on to their positions as if their lives depended on it.

Because day by day, it is becoming more evident that the “rubes” are way smarter than the “elites”.

The entitlement state can’t be reformed by one house of Congress in one year against a determined President and Senate held by the other party. It requires more than one election. The Obama Democrats have staged a spending blowout to 24% of GDP and rising, and now they want to find a way to finance it to make it permanent. Those are the real stakes of 2012.

The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.

The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling this a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won’t vote for one, then what’s the alternative to Mr. McConnell’s maneuver?

Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He’ll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He’ll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he’ll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor’s so decides.

We’d far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won’t go along, there’s no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303678704576442231815463502.html?mod=rss_opinion_main