Breaking: White House threatens veto of Cut, Cap, and Balance bill

posted at 12:41 pm on July 18, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

With the House poised to vote on a debt-ceiling increase tomorrow, the White House has released a threat to veto the bill if it reaches the President’s desk.  This statement was just released by e-mail, emphasis in the original:

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2560, the “Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011.”  Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility.  Increasing the Federal debt limit, which is needed to avoid a Federal government default on its obligations and a severe blow to the economy, should not be conditioned on taking these actions.  Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.

The bill would undercut the Federal Government’s ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future.  H. R. 2560 would set unrealistic spending caps that could result in significant cuts to education, research and development, and other programs critical to growing our economy and winning the future.  It could also lead to severe cuts in Medicare and Social Security, which are growing to accommodate the retirement of the baby boomers, and put at risk the retirement security for tens of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, H. R. 2560 could require even deeper cuts, since it conditions an increase in the Federal debt limit on Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  H. R. 2560 sets out a false and unacceptable choice between the Federal Government defaulting on its obligations now or, alternatively, passing a Balanced Budget Amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.

The President has proposed a comprehensive and balanced framework that ensures we live within our means and reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, while supporting economic growth and long-term job creation, protecting critical investments, and meeting the commitments made to provide economic security to Americans no matter their circumstances.  H.R. 2560 is inconsistent with this responsible framework to restore fiscal responsibility and is not an appropriate method of reducing the Nation’s deficits and debt.  The Administration is committed to working with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to achieve real solutions.

If the President were presented this bill for signature, he would veto it.

A few points seem remarkable here.  Is it really Barack Obama’s contention that a balanced budget, now or in the future, threatens the dignity of retirees?  What basis does he have for claiming that deficits are a necessary component of retiree dignity?  That sounds very much like a demand for eternal deficit spending, with no attempt at any discipline whatsoever.

As far as Obama’s “comprehensive and balanced framework,” CNS News reminds us that the only specific plan Obama has published actually increases deficit spending rather than decrease it:

While the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has voted this year to approve House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R.-Wis.) proposal–that would put the government on a gradual path to a surplus by 2040–and plans to vote on a balanced budget amendment next week that would cap federal spending at 18 percent of GDP, the only budget proposal President Obama’s has publicly revealed in 2011 would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, increase the deficit by $26 billion this year, $83 billion next year, and $2.7 trillion over the next decade.

Additionally, although annual budget deficits would decline somewhat between 2013 and 2015 under Obama’s proposal, according to the CBO, after that they would start increasing again, going up every year from 2016 to 2021, the last year estimated by the CBO.

In short, the only budget proposal Obama has put forward this year for the public to review and analyze puts the federal government on a path to eventual bankruptcy.

The CBO report from April can be found here.  This chart shows that Obama’s projected budget produces bigger deficits by percentage of GDP than anything seen since 1981 — with the exceptions of the Democratic budgets to 2008-11.  They’re worse than the baseline we’re on at the moment, and not coincidentally, they make the debt load appreciably worse as a result:

If the CCB bill gets through the House and the Senate, would Obama really veto it?  He’d have to defy a Senate controlled by his own party to cancel a debt-limit increase in a situation that his own administration has relentlessly hyped as a fiscal Armageddon.  I’d call that a real long shot.

Call his bluff, GOP.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Many (but not enough) of the Republicans that went along with these horrendous financial ideas actually got the boot in 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats doubled down on stupid and blew spending through the roof

Are you aware of the actual budget numbers from 2001 to 2008? The horrendous financial ideas came from the GOP and the double down on spending occurred before Republicans lost the House. If you want to blame both parties, fine, but playing the role of victims when the GOP was in charge is absurd.

Note that in the year when Bush and GOP controlled Congress, spending increased by nearly 40%. Spending increases that followed were much smaller in comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM

So a budget and a budget deficit are now the same. Got it.

chewmeister on July 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM

At least Bayam admits this is all political for Obama. He wants tax increases for his base – screw what is good for the country,

Hell of a “leader” you got there.
Hey, bayam – if the gov’t just took everyone’s property, there would be no deficit and if we didn’t hace pesky rules or teh pesky constitution, we wouldn’t have to have this awful debate. You must just hate having to deal with such things.
Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

As someone on another site puts it

Democrats: RAISE TAXES, Screw (or Obama) the economy!

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Who is gonna see this post from Huffpo? Not any conservative…

*snort*

How many do you think will see this post at Huffpo? LOL

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mendelcrosses .128 Fans
Become a fan Unfan .02:37 PM on 7/14/2011 I dont know of any neocon millionair­e who made his own money – they all inherited from someone who most likely got rich from theft,slav­e exploitati­on,embezzl­ement,etc. There is no businessma­n who understand­s economics that will make the kind of arguments these neocons make most of the time. No Busineesma­n thinks impoverish­ing the populace is good for business. No businessma­n believes making the workforce sick is good business.
Favorite (1) Flag as Abusive mendelcrosses: I dont know of any neocon millionaire who made his
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/mendelcrosses/bill-maher-casey-anthony-republican_n_893926_97218381.html
History | Permalink | Share it .
raven1205 .0 Fans .0 minute ago (7:57 PM) This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.

Like the Kennedy’s? Like Algore? Like Rockefelle­r? If they want to pay more taxes, there is nothing stopping them. You should protest Algore taking carbon credits. I could listen to you then. Maybe.

ladyingray on July 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM

I hate the Associated Press.

A few years ago (during the Bush hate) I noticed how many people (older) read the paper and so I looked at the storie and noticed almost ALL of the news stories/analysis/articles were compiled from the AP.

I remember we used to have UPI and decided to count how many of the stories were basically AP written. OVER 90% of the National articles were AP. That’s when I realized that if you really wanted to control the newspapers and what was “fit to print” all you had to do was dominate the Associated Press.

Do Newspaper reader even notice that they are just reading opinion from the AP?

Conservatives have done a lousy job defending turf and letting the Progressives control the agenda.

Can we do better?

PappyD61 on July 18, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Whaat! Trouble in paradise?

http://mrctv.org/videos/warren-buffett-not-fan-obama%E2%80%99s-corporate-jet-rhetoric

Warren Buffett Not a Fan of Obama’s Corporate Jet Rhetoric

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

It’s so cute when nitwit lefties confuse the liberal personal choices of individuals and their income (Gates, et al from your list) with the capitalist corporations they were/are running.

Midas on July 18, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Hey, bayam – if the gov’t just took everyone’s property, there would be no deficit and if we didn’t hace pesky rules or teh pesky constitution, we wouldn’t have to have this awful debate. You must just hate having to deal with such things.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

This is why Oppressive governments always have to repress freedom of speech, their agenda cannot stand up to honest debate.

This is why she disappears ever so often, because she can’t abide debate here often times – usually when someone poses a question she can’t answer and she can’t use as a springboard to post Marxist propaganda.

Isn’t that right bayam?

Anyways, their agenda is based on lies and falsehoods.

The only way they can survive is to change to label on their ideology every so often when it proves to be an utter failure – yet again.

Hey bayam – how is your agenda of National Oppressive Socialism different all the version of same from ages past?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM

But I assure you that the people that started Google are idiots about macroeconomics and optimal fiscal policies.

Do you think developing biotechnology requires an expertise in government taxation? Does being at the right place at the right time in business make someone an expert in government fiscal policies? Does winning the lottery give someone’s political views any credibility at all?

blink on July 18, 2011 at 8:21 PM

If you’re saying that this country should listen to preeminent Wall Street economists or Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan, that’s acceptable to me. But too many right wingers respond to a different calling- the drivel of the unqualified yard barker who has zero experience building a great company and zero experience in finance. As a result, you have people who claim to support capitalism pushing fiscal policies that have no credibility- one reason the markets are ready to push the panic button.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

It must be crunch time. The LSM has come up with the bogus poll, that has the Republicans in a panic. I hope they’re smart enough to deal with it with their proposal. Put in like $3 million in increased revenue by cancelling the corporate jet depreciation, it’s a bogus break that not too many people care about. It’s so petty, just tell Obama, here you got the only tax you’ve been complaining about on a regular basis, now let’s cut this and that and call it a day.

If they don’t do their job, I’ll be upset. I believe that, even if the polls are negative right now, if they do the right thing and Obama vetoes it and they have to accept his bad deal and the economy is still in the tank next year, Obama loses. If Obama listens to them and the economy turns around there’s a 50/50 chance Obama wins because of it, but the country is better off. Frame the argument correctly.

Will someone, anyone, put Marco Rubio in charge of messaging for the Republican Party!!!!!!!!!!

Vote Republican and only be called a racist one more time.

bflat879 on July 18, 2011 at 8:51 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

How is your agenda of National Oppressive Socialism different from all the version of the same from ages past?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 8:58 PM

ladyingray on July 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM

The prog cabal needs desperately to sell the narrative that the rich don’t deserve what they have. They do so by claiming that they ‘stole their money from the people’, they inherited it from someone that stole it, etc, etc. That makes it so much easier to convince others to take away what the wealthy have. It’s pure Marxism.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 9:13 PM

the drivel of the unqualified yard barker who has zero experience building a great company and zero experience in finance
bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

You mean like the guy you voted for for Pres and still support to this day?

txmomof6 on July 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM

I agree that Geithner is pushing fear but it’s fear that he’s channeling from the markets and business leaders. You have to understand that many on Wall Street are predicting complete armageddon. And you can bet that every GOP Congressman is getting calls from their corporate donors with reminders that the GOP has a responsibility to protect business. The current uncertainty not only threatens to roil the markets, but it’s causing the entire world to re-asses the stability of our financial and political institutions. It’s a sad day when China start to look like a more stable system but I’m afraid that day has come.

bayam: There are several points to make about your limited assessment. Wall Street has made out like bandits every time the federal government puts bandaids like TARP, Stimulus I and II in place. Did it ever occur to you that they expect to win big through more speculation and maneuvering through the escalation of more borrowing?

Secondly, you had better look at OpenSecrets to learn who the big corporate donors are. The Dems rely on the “received wisdom” (totally incorrect) that the cronyism with corporations and banks is a Republican issue. It assuredly is not. Ask Jeff Immelt how many loopholes GE found to avoid corporate taxes…and be rewarded with new “green jobs.”

Thirdly,if the world markets see that we must borrow in order to service our borrowing debt, then they already have lost confidence in our financial and political institutions. However, they may be equally worried about their own indebtedness caused by the same out-of-control borrowing. Do you know how many foreign banks our own TARP rewarded to bail out their fiscal malfeasance.

Maybe all of the world institutions are jittery because the Ponzi scheme is collapsing. We don’t need to go into further bankrupting debt to prop up a failed system.

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 9:22 PM

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Just listen to bayam:

I find your version of capitalism childish and uninformed. You like to ‘play’ the role of self-described expert on capitalism but in reality are merely a loud mouthed sideline observer and don’t have the slightest idea why right wing nuts in your mold aren’t the ones at the front of American excpetionalism, growing today’s great industries and companies.

Like the communists, the future of your type in capitalism had been relegated to the dustbin of history.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Anyone who incessantly calls for wealth redistribution – higher taxes, making the rich pay their fair share, blah, blah is essential claiming that some people’s – their time and energy is somehow the property of the state.

I don’t know how you can morally justify that sort of governmental theft.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

How is your agenda of National Oppressive Socialism different from all the version of the same from ages past?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 9:41 PM

while reducing our ability to invest in our future.

If you can’t pay your debts from yesterday, you can’t invest in anything.

Fighton03 on July 18, 2011 at 9:47 PM

It was a symbolic vote to protest the massive deficit spending that was going on throughout the 2000′s, never a threat to actually put the US in default. Even in 2006, it was clear to most mainstream economists that the country’s drunken spend-fest was going to end badly.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Would failure to raise the debt limit have resulted in default then?

Fighton03 on July 18, 2011 at 10:04 PM

But too many right wingers respond to a different calling- the drivel of the unqualified yard barker who has zero experience building a great company and zero experience in finance.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Not sure too many “right wingers” voted for Obama.

Fighton03 on July 18, 2011 at 10:05 PM

I would prefer that the House pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling just enough to get us through this year, and announce that they will vote again to raise the debt ceiling when a budget for next fiscal year is adopted by both houses and signed by the President. This would force the Senate budget committee to put forward a plan and also force the president to take a stand.

I think this approach would give the GOP the most leverage in NEXT YEAR’s budget process, which is where we need to start cutting – not in the “out years”. I think the GOP could take a very strong stand that they would not authorize a debt limit beyond what has been authorized by budget and signed into law. Has anyone proposed something like this?

huskerjeff on July 18, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Harry Reid 2006 : Raising Debt Limit will hurt the country and the economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELkbDdPeL7I&feature=player_embedded

Dasher on July 18, 2011 at 10:53 PM

… Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility.

Likewise, I’ve also heard that it’s not necessary to separate liquor from a drunk for them to become clean and sober.

/sarc

electric-rascal on July 19, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Note that in the year when Bush and GOP controlled Congress, spending increased by nearly 40%. Spending increases that followed were much smaller in comparison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Bayam, once again you are a bald face liar. You’ve tried this same stupid trick repeatedly- intentionally leaving off Obama’s numbers. So let’s include them:

2012 United States federal budget – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)

Obama: (3.7-3.1) / 3 = 200 billion per year increase on average
Bush: (3.1-1.9) / 8 = 150 billion per year increase on average

So Obama’s spending increases are a third worse than Bush’s on an annual basis, not “much less” as you repeatedly and erroneously claim.

Chuck Schick on July 19, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Bush’s last two budgets were with the Democratic Congress and the spending increases were less than the Democrats wanted, so that’s deceptive as well.

With all the attention to the rating agencies’ warnings about default’s effect on our bond rating (and thereby the interest we’d have to pay), the other and bigger part of their message has been ignored.

It’s not enough to avoid default to keep our credit rating from being downgraded. Our fiscal situation is not sustainable, and we will be downgraded unless we cut $4 – 5 trillion over the next ten years. Even Cut Cap & Balance doesn’t cut enough. Obama has so far agreed in theory to $1.5, but it’s not specified or promised except in out years (which means its illusory), so you may as well say “none.”

Ryan’s budget plan which already passed the House would come pretty close to saving our rating. And it’s critical, because higher interest would eat up our budgets very quickly, and default – and even higher interest costs – might be inevitable no matter what we did at that point.

Obama is catastrophe. We can’t get rid of this crybaby dunce fast enough.

Adjoran on July 19, 2011 at 2:48 AM

… Neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility.

Likewise, I’ve also heard that it’s not necessary to separate liquor from a drunk for them to become clean and sober.

/sarc

electric-rascal on July 19, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Excellent point -spending addiction is what we are dealing with here. If Spending caps don’t mean anything, and won’t work, as Moody’s (the administrations favorite support group) says they don’t, so get rid of them. Then why in blazes is there such a bruhaha going on at the crisis level about debt ceilings? They do work-if we use them.
It is only because of the debt ceiling that they bother to even address their spending addiction. Keep the ceiling intact and let the chips fall where they will -nothing else but a full faced-intervention by the citizens of this nation – via the demand that ceiling be held as a line in the sand, will stop these carefree adolescents with daddy’s maxed-out credit cards.It’s time to put congress on a 12 step program.
Just as a bigger garage is nothing but enabling to a hoarder,moving the debt limit merely enables the sickness. They are unable to stop.

Don L on July 19, 2011 at 6:01 AM

Google, Apple, Genetech, Microsoft, and many other business empires have arisen to prove your total irrelevance.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

If I am irrelevent, why do you have to continually come on here and lie? I hate to break it to you, but not every progressive is rich, not every rich person is a progressive, not every big business was created by or is run by progressives.

You are an infant arguing with people much more intelligent than you.

the argument Steve Jobs is a progressive and Apple is a big business therefore progressives are the only true capitalists is so ignorant it is not worth responding to. It is a joke. You are a joke.

You lie, you lie and all you do is lie.

Not ever economist thinks raising taxes is teh solution to all our problems. Plenty of economists think major entitlement structural reform is the most important thing we need to do.

Obama is an idiot and a liar. You can’t expect anyone to take him or anything he says seriously. He was against raising teh debt ceilint a short 4 years ago. He was for structural entitlement reform during the campaign. He lies with every breath he takes. He is a marxist partisan ideologue who would rather destroy the economy than make an adult choice to fix things b/c it might harm his reelection campaign to make any hard choices.

Why do you think Democrats have not passed a budget in 2 years? Is that responsible? Adult? Good for the country?

You and all those like you are pathetic and evil at best. You do nothing but lie and envy other people. You support tyranny and hope to use gov’t to keep people down. You hate the constitution and wish we had a USSR style gov’t. It is despicable.

I have yet to see you make one rational arguement based on facts that was not a complete made up lie. You are so far gone that you probably actually believe the crap you spew.

You don’t even bother being consistent from one comment to the next. Every time your lies are called out, you ignore it and simply move on to the next lie. You are utterly ridiculous

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 7:58 AM

You don’t even bother being consistent from one comment to the next. Every time your lies are called out, you ignore it and simply move on to the next lie. You are utterly ridiculous

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 7:58 AM

We have chimps at our local zoo who throw feces at the zookeepers. You would do better to argue with them. They have more class.

SKYFOX on July 19, 2011 at 8:11 AM

Like Eric Schmidt, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs, I find your version of capitalism childish and uninformed. You like to ‘play’ the role of self-described expert on capitalism but in reality are merely a loud mouthed sideline observer and don’t have the slightest idea why right wing nuts in your mold aren’t the ones at the front of American excpetionalism, growing today’s great industries and companies. Like the communists, the future of your type in capitalism had been relegated to the dustbin of history. Google, Apple, Genetech, Microsoft, and many other business empires have arisen to prove your total irrelevance.

Are you saying that Gates et al are marxists?

I love how you appropriate those individuals to your cause. You have no idea whether they side with you on every issue. they have called for one thing you agree with – tax increases.

As I’ve explained before, but you are far to stupid to understand, the wealthy, once they have attained their wealth, use their influence w/ gov’t to keep their competition down and are able to hide their wealth such that increased taxes do not affect themselves. So them calling for tax increases does not support your point whatsoever.

You keep pointing to them and claimign that “progressives are the true capitalist”. That is asinine. All big businesses use gov’t to increase their wealth and keep competition down. it is called crony capitalism – something progressives used to claim to be against. It is precisely because gov’t is so big and oppresive that businesses can and will do this. Making barriers to entrance and growth for everyone else. It is a well documented phenomena – documented by all those economists you claim to know and understand. It is pretty apparent that aside from knowing the names of some companies you know nothing about economics or business.

these individuals still shelter their wealth – thus disproving any belief that they want the gov’t to have more of their money. They lobby the gov’t for tax breaks for their own businesses – thus disproving any belief that higher taxes are always a good thing.

I’ll give you an example, even though you are too stupid to understand it. Warren Buffet always comes out against getting rid of the death tax (i.e., estate taxes). Buffet made much of his money buying businesses from families who couldn’t afford the estate tax and had to sell at reduced rates. In other words, he made tons of money off the estate tax. So, he is not a “good progressive” because he always comes out against getting rid of it. He is a wealth person using gov’t regulation for his own enrichment. The same tends to be true of all these rich people.

Your claim that all rich people and all business builders are progressives is evidence enough that you are entirely ignorant of american business, but your failure to understand why these individuals like the idea of taxes on everyone else demonstrates an ignorance of economics as well.

You are a sad, sorry creature. You spout words that you have no idea the meaning of.

Us – “taxes right now would be a bad idea and would simply be used to grow gov’t anyway”.

Bayam – “but Apple!! Microsoft!! Steve Jobs!! Germany!!”

Yeah, real argument you have there, idiot.

You don’t even understand the math at issue. You believe that taxing the “rich” will solve our problems. You are about the biggest leftist idiot to date at HotAir.

But, if you are really being honest that we should simply do what wealthy people say (which appears to be your sole argument “Steve Jobs!!!!”), I say we turn over fiscal policy strictly to americans who have more than $500 million in wealth. they can vote on fiscal policy from now on and the rest of us can just shut up. Somehow, I’m willing to bet that the policy will end up wayyyyy more conservative than “progressive.” Somehow, I doubt that these business people are going to agree to continue the idiotic entitlement programs as is and allow the crazy spending to continue. And, I doubt they will find a majority to raise taxes either.

But, I’m sure that Apple and Microsoft have made all other businesses and economic thought irrelevent. Why, every other business can shut down now and we can all bask in the utopia that Microsoft and Apple have created with their new economic empires built on progressive thought alone. I’m sure that neither company employs low paid labor in asia, or does anything else that progressives would find troublesome or that benefits the bottom line at teh expense of “progressive” values.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:15 AM

But too many right wingers respond to a different calling- the drivel of the unqualified yard barker who has zero experience building a great company and zero experience in finance.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Unlike you? Or Obama? I love how “progressives” love big business suddenly. What qualifies as a “great company” in your mind? Wal-Mart? Bechtel? Exxon-Mobile? Coors? Haliburtan?

Or is it just software companies where the founder said something progressive once?

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:21 AM

But too many right wingers respond to a different calling- the drivel of the unqualified yard barker who has zero experience building a great company and zero experience in finance.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Like Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Joe Biden? John Kerry? Al Gore?

I love this idea that suddenly you have to be an “expert in finance” to have an opinion. Much like Global Warming, the left’s argument is “teh science is settled” there is a “concensus” that we need new taxes. Of course, that is hardly true – but any economist who doesn’t agree is labeled “unserious” or somesuch.

Simply stating somethign is a fact does not make it so.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:26 AM

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:21 AM

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 8:26 AM

**Stands up, Cheering**

Ahh that series reminds me of the other day when I smashed a horse fly with a hammer.

[bayam maybe you should put some ice on that, I could hear that smack down way up here, that had to hurt]

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Yeah, real argument you have there

Not surprised you rude little boy that it went right over your head.

Much like Global Warming, the left’s argument is “teh science is settled” there is a “concensus” that we need new taxes.

I’m sorry, I forgot that your ‘opinion’ means as much as that of an expert such as Greenspan or the former CEO of Alcoa, Paul O’Neill, the Bush Treasury Secretary who opposed those tax cuts. In your little world, ideology is all that matters and there’s a limited role for those with experience and expertise.

So you must be right, slightly higher taxes on the wealthy or any other form of revenue compromise will ruin the economy, because right wingers say so. If the WSJ or Barrons or Bernanke or the bipartisan deficit commission insist that some tax increases are necessary, it doesn’t matter because there’s no room for expert opinion, just ideology.

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:28 AM

I’m sorry, I forgot that your ‘opinion’ means as much as that of an expert such as Greenspan or the former CEO of Alcoa, Paul O’Neill, the Bush Treasury Secretary who opposed those tax cuts.

At this point I’m not sure who to trust less – ‘certified’ experts or those whose only qualification is banging on a keyboard. The one group is continually wrong in their predictions, while the other just goes “LALALALA I can’t heeeear you!”.

Uncle Sams Nephew on July 19, 2011 at 9:49 AM

So you must be right, slightly higher taxes on the wealthy or any other form of revenue compromise will ruin the economy.

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:28 AM

Ever notice that the Oppressive-Left always likes to portray every tax increase as a small amount as in “slightly higher taxes”

Each incremental increase is spun as though it’s not on top of ALL the other taxes that we get ‘Obamaed’ with every day: Income taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, state sales taxes, state property taxes, local property taxes, local school taxes, capital gain surcharges, user fees, on and on and on.

But each time the National Socialists want to take, some more it’s couched as “slightly higher” or some other such nonsense.

It’s like the scene at the Frat initiation in the movie Animal house where the one pledge (can’t recall his name right now) is hit by a paddle and responds “Thank you sir! May I have another”

According to esteemed members of the Oppressive-Left like bayam, the rich are just supposed to gladly take it each every time as they turn the taxation screws and not let it have any bearing on their behavior, unreal.

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 9:50 AM

According to esteemed members of the Oppressive-Left like bayam, the rich are just supposed to gladly take it each every time as they turn the taxation screws and not let it have any bearing on their behavior, unreal.

Can you year yourself?

So oppressed, those top three on the Forbes wealthist Americans list who want their taxes increased, along with many others. Luckily some on the right know better.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/07/why-some-millionaires-want-their-tax-cuts-to-end.html

More oppressive writings from the socialists at the WSJ who join the known communists Greenspan and Bernanke in pointing to the need to end some Bush tax cuts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576440250900783950.html

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Is that all you have? An incessant regurgitation of the virtually the same talking point over and over again?

Why don’t you try addressing the point I made?

Or is it the true lesson here that you can’t (as always) so you have to obfuscate onto some other subject?

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Time to sack up!!!

keepinitreal on July 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Chuck Schick on July 19, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Bayam resorted to a couple more lies. Presidents dont submit budgets and the ones from 2007 on belong to the dems in congress.

Many of whom have failed to submit a budget now for 800+ days.

Bayam is a very slick socialist troll.

He omits another fact for socialists. Bush was not a conservative or a true capitalist. That statement may sting, but it is correct.

Failbama probably wont veto the CCB, but it is not the right answer either.

We need real and very deep CUTS, not reductions in increases the jackasses in DC plitically label as “cuts.”

Among our real issues is the DC BS index.

dogsoldier on July 19, 2011 at 10:50 AM

He omits another difficult fact for socialists.

Sorry typo

dogsoldier on July 19, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Are the Dems going to go for broke (no pun intended)?

Bill Clinton Would Declare The Debt Limit Illegal

http://www.nationalmemo.com/article/exclusive-former-president-bill-clinton-says-he-would-use-constitutional-option-raise-debt

A Democrat putsch in the wind?

Viator on July 19, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Are you saying that Gates et al are marxists?

How about this one? Like many wealthy Americans, Gates has created a foundation. These legal instruments shelter their money by making them tax-free.

Theresa Heinz-Kerry comes to mind. How many foundations does her inherited fortune hide from taxation?

The truly wealthy do not subsist on their earnings, the way small businesses do. Larger corporations plow their profits back into expansion, hiring, or research and development. If those capital generators are thwarted, then the job market will continue to stagnate or spiral even further downward.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Women and minorities, er, old people hit hardest.

Mason on July 19, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM

Gee, how did I know that bayam won’t have a response?

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Cut, Cap and Balance.

It makes common sense. Fiscal sense. Economic sense. moral sense. Constitutional sense.

No wonder the President is aganst it.

Yakko77 on July 19, 2011 at 11:18 AM

We need real and very deep CUTS, not reductions in increases the jackasses in DC plitically label as “cuts.”

Among our real issues is the DC BS index.

dogsoldier on July 19, 2011 at 10:50 AM

That would go against bayam’s and other oppressive’s Cardinal rule that they must always redistribute the wealth.

No matter the consequences.

Chip on July 19, 2011 at 11:20 AM

If the WSJ or Barrons or Bernanke or the bipartisan deficit commission insist that some tax increases are necessary, it doesn’t matter because there’s no room for expert opinion, just ideology.

bayam on July 19, 2011 at 9:28 AM

there’s the lie. first, the GOP did not just write of tax increases. Indeed, many on the right have repeatedly stated that if Obama had at least considered some of his own commission’s recommendations, there was room for compromise.

It is idiot ideological purists like Obama and you who have ignored teh commission’s recommendations and instead fixated on one thing only – Tax increases.

You are a lying POS without a clue. Obama never even acknowledges his own commission’s recommendation. If you look at it – they recommend significant structural reform of entitlements. All obama has offered is fake future cuts for tax increases now.

No matter how many times we repeat the same things, you come back with the same lies. You can’t stop yourself.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Bayam -

Greenspan says do it, so we must. See! I have a real argument!! All REAL economists say you must do it. I’m a big boy now!! We have “consensus”! The science is settled!

Yeah – a slight increase on the “rich” will really accomplish a lot. Even your super-hero’s Greenspan et al admit that is a huge and enormous lie.

So where does that leave you you lying sack of filth who doesn’t seem to be able to perform basic math functions?

Why are you so against cuts? Show me some real structural reform of entitlements and I’ll agree to some increased taxes on those earning more than $1 million a year. But a marxist leftis like your boy obama would never agree to that and we both know it. He is stuck in his ideological whole where he would rather the economy crash and burn than do the adult responsible thinga nd reform entitlements.

You and your ideological brethren are infantile and ignorant.

Steve Jobs!! Bernancke!! Greenspan!! They all want structural reform of entitlements – yet your side will never go for that b/c in order to get anyone to vote democrat you have to promise more and more handouts.

But somehow, the only thing any of these people or Obaman’s commission that you hear or respond to is “tax increases” which make your dick hard. You pretend to listen to what the “experts” say and come here adn lecture us, but you only hear what you want to hear. The vast majority of what all of the experts call for are cuts and structural reform. Tax increases are minor compared to that. Yet all you care about is tax increases. How does that make you and yours responsible? It doesn’t.

gov’t has a history of promissing cuts in exchange for future tax increases which never materialize. So, it is entirely reasonable to take the position of show me the cuts and reform now, and we’ll discuss tax increases later. Particularly when the tax increases you are talking about will do very little to address the problem.

Idiot.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 11:54 AM

The funniest thing is, the left hated Greenspan and discounted everything he said until they heard him agree with some tax increases. Yet they are the “smart ones” w/o ideological blinders on.

Ridiculous.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Not surprised you rude little boy that it went right over your head.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Not surprised you rude little boy that it went right over your head.

Really – you think mentioning someone’s name is an argument. I mean, you have proven yourself to be an idiot of the first order, but now you are admiting to even being more idiotic than that?

Bernanke!! Greenspan!! Lightning bolt!!

And, I tend to be rude to people as blatantly dishonest as yourself. No need to be polite to someone who can’t be honest. I know you have no shame, but attempts to make you see the value of honesty will still be made. Someday you will likely wake up and realize that lying every other word is not persuasive argument.

Monkeytoe on July 19, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Obama has a budget plan. Here it is:

Present proposal to the budget crisis that the republicans will not agree too.

Paint the Republicans as the ones who could not come up with a passable plan and blame them for anything the Democrats did prolong the problem.

Hold off until the last minute when Democrats can invoke the their interpertaion of the 14th admendment: that the president has the power to raise the debt ceiling by excutive decree.
That will effectively gives the administration the power of the purse with no control and increase his ability to rule by decree when congress does not give him what he wants. (think of his good buddy, Chavez)

No fear of the Supreme court since he has done an FDR and stacked the court with socialist that support him and his goal.

They say they will get socialism right this time, which means they will have enough money to support it long enough that it will eventually work.

Socialism is the progressive step between capitalism and state control communism. Socialim has to fail to succeed.

Franklyn on July 19, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4