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

all hail elizabeth warren per dear leader….
those evil gop wouldn’t confirm her awesomeness

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Which is why he’s trying to frighten Senate Dems into not doing it, under the pretext (and that’s largely what this is) that he’ll veto it.

Vyce on July 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM

This is what I don’t get though. How would that frighten the vulnerable ones (McCaskill, Tester etc)? If he threatens veto and they vote in favor of it, then they can tell their constituents that they voted against the president’s wishes thereby distancing themselves from him.

txmomof6 on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Really? They trotted out the WTF catch phrase?
how can we be winning the future when our hands are tied by the past (debt)?

kooly on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Knucklehead on July 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM

just like everything else the house has passed….

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

all hail elizabeth warren per dear leader….
those evil gop wouldn’t confirm her awesomeness

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

hahaha…

;)

Lourdes on July 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM

What? We need to borrow to invest in the future now? What kinda bullshyt is that?

darwin on July 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

What the jackass is saying is that “we” need to borrow more from China so that he can indiscriminately puke the money all over his voting blocks in an attempt to win in 2012.

clnurnberg on July 18, 2011 at 1:18 PM

Those charts are breathtaking! Amazing what this guy has accomplished! DEMS should be very proud of themselves. Too bad their accomplishments are our doom!

SPGuy on July 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Haha. He thinks the new class of House members are some community that will be intimidated. He has never had to deal with real people who live in the real world.

SouthernGent on July 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

CALL IT!

Eren on July 18, 2011 at 1:19 PM

will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.

So, that is what this Bozo thinks is the real purpose of the federal government of the United States of America? How about a little dignity in the damned White House, Champ?

MikeA on July 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM

bipartisan common ground

Yeah, like 0bamacare? OOPS.

Actually eliminating 0bamacare would probably be bipartisan at this point.

shanimal on July 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Cue the prototypical obama supporter trolls with words on how we can only save the country by bankrupting it.

NMRN123 on July 18, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Is it really Barack Obama’s contention that a balanced budget, now or in the future, threatens the dignity of retirees?

Isn’t our reason for being the dignity of retirees?

Congress is giving Obooba the chance to veto a balanced budget law because a constitutional amendment doesn’t need his signature and he can’t veto it: and he’s stoopit enough to take the bait.

Akzed on July 18, 2011 at 1:22 PM

This is what I don’t get though. How would that frighten the vulnerable ones (McCaskill, Tester etc)? If he threatens veto and they vote in favor of it, then they can tell their constituents that they voted against the president’s wishes thereby distancing themselves from him.

txmomof6 on July 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Threat of the nutroots primarying them, maybe?

Really, the Administration is grasping at straws here. They desperately want some sort of debt ceiling agreement with SOME tax increases in them, so that they can claim this as a “victory” for themselves. If the GOP puts forth a deal, without them, and the Senate Dems approve it, and Obama has to eat it, it’s an obvious loss. And he can’t be seen as losing to the GOP on this, because, as we already know, he has a disastrous record on the economy, and doesn’t need voters (in 2012) realizing that the GOP has the upper hand or are the more sensible party.

Vyce on July 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

feinstein digging the harry/mitch proposal

wonderful
/

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Impressive

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Tester, McCaskill, Landrieu, and Manchin’s votes will be VERY interesting. I think they’ll all vote for it if their vote isn’t the deciding one, braves souls that Senators are.

SouthernGent on July 18, 2011 at 1:27 PM

we have been bombarded with predictions of the acopolypse coming from every quarter including all the European press, our press, the financial houses, the crazy dems that never produced a budget as they burned through $3.7 trillion…

Am I the only guy that thinks this whole charade is going to be carried by the 1/2 of the US worforce that actually pays taxes?

DanMan on July 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Republicans haven’t gone wobbly on the debt ceiling debate, but in the House they are laying a trap for themselves that will leave them holding the bag for any downgrade or default on America’s sovereign debt.

“Cut, Cap and Balance” cuts only $111 billion in this year’s spending — so small inside $14.3 trillion in debt as to be ridiculous — and then promises caps on future spending and a balanced budget constitutional amendment. But caps on future spending are susceptible to future congressional spending hikes. The BBA — as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) said yesterday — may not be ratified by the states for a decade. A balanced budget amendment is a great idea, but it’s not going to do anything to help fix this month’s debt ceiling crisis.

And then there’s more bumbling. After listening to Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Fox News Sunday yesterday, you would have understood that the Cut, Cap and Balance bill actually includes a balanced budget amendment. But it doesn’t. I received a copy of the CCB legislation — HR-2560 — late Sunday afternoon. It requires that a BBA has to be passed before a debt ceiling increase, but it doesn’t include one.

You gotta be kidding me.

Why waste a critical week debating the need for a balanced budget amendment that won’t be voted on and a cap on spending that any future Congress can change? Why not spend those days working on a plan the House can pass that will actually solve the debt ceiling crisis?

Lon Chaney on July 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

The Sounds of Silence

A rating agency executive on CNBC this morning predicted Armageddon due to debt in socialist Europe.

Just another tea partier. Except this one predicted the last melt down and earns a living from large institutions rating such things.

Uh oh. Kaite bar the door and make sure the media doesn’t pick this one up!

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM

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.

In the short time of his thuggery he has spent 10 Trillion dollars. It’s just the top of the milk bottle. This baby is a vicious, malicious, hungry thug.

Call his bluff, GOP.

Here’s hoping for R-fortitude and especially steely gonads.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Threat of the nutroots primarying them, maybe?

Really, the Administration is grasping at straws here.

Vyce on July 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM

More likely that Obama is trying to prevent a primary challenge in case he loses this fight.

txmomof6 on July 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM

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?

In normal economic conditions, there’s no conflict between a balanced budget and entitlement programs. But you can’t have both, like tomorrow, when the economy remains on a precipice. That’s not to say that the current level of deficit spending is acceptable- I have been deeply troubled by the nation’s growing dependence on deficit spending over the last decade, when many continued to say that “deficits don’t matter”. But you can’t apply shock therapy to the nation’s economy by gutting government spending before the economy has had a chance to recover from the great recession.
http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/07/15/bill-gross-on-debt-ceiling-lawmakers-dont-get-the-implications/

Question- would requiring a constitutional amendment which must be ratified by the states add another dimension of ongoing crisis? It’s time for crisis mode to end, the US economy doesn’t need default armageddon hanging over it for the next year. That sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

He also compared the US to Portugal.

Funny that Dear Leader doesn’t use that fact to scare the folks. It scares me.

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Breaking: the malicious power thugs love the crisis. They don’t care to end it. May history punish and banish them into oblivion, in the least.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

bayam, you malicious fool – yours don’t want to end the crisis. They made and prolonged it. It’s the only way they know how to function, the impertinent malicious thugs.

Great leaders don’t wait until minute last to solve something this big, alas.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM

But you can’t have both, like tomorrow, when the economy remains on a precipice.

What the heck has yours fool in chief done to aid the economy? Nada. He enjoys the crises…but history will catch up with him and with you. Otherwise the land deserves both of you.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Time for a reprise re: Obama’s plan:

Where’s the Beef?

horatio on July 18, 2011 at 1:37 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

So instead we should just continue on with the same Insanity and just Hope for different results?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Question- would requiring a constitutional amendment which must be ratified by the states add another dimension of ongoing crisis? It’s time for crisis mode to end, the US economy doesn’t need default armageddon hanging over it for the next year. That sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

I’m not positive, but I believe that the BBA language in the house’s bill requires only that congress pass the amendment, not that the States’ ratify it. Requiring the states’ ratification wouldn’t make much sense, b/c that would likely take significantly longer than a year (setting up campaigns in the states, etc), so would not allow the debt ceiling to be raised any time soon if passed with a state ratification requirement.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Great leaders don’t wait until minute last to solve something this big, alas.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:35 PM

If they are trying to transform their country into Zimbabwe they do.

Lon Chaney on July 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals

Is this not the very definition of the Obama administration? Empty political statements and unrealistic policy goals?

jdkchem on July 18, 2011 at 1:42 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

So basically you’re telling us that Obama should be able to take advantage of the serious crisis He created (The Obama Depression) to drive us further into debt?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 1:42 PM

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.

So instead, he wants an automatic 22% benefit cut when the “Trust Funds” run out of money, and a threatened 100% reduction in a couple weeks.

Steve Eggleston on July 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Actually eliminating 0bamacare would probably be bipartisan at this point.

shanimal on July 18, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Eliminating it would resolve the debt ceiling issue for the rest of the year.

Vashta.Nerada on July 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM

If they are trying to transform their country into Zimbabwe they do.

Lon Chaney on July 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

You said it better than any of us could.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals

Actually, I have to agree with 0bama here. It is unrealistic to think that you might get somewhere trying to reason with people who are completely detached from reality.

If there is any hope at all for fiscal sanity, we simply have to vote 0bama out of office in 2012.

UltimateBob on July 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM

But if [cut, cap, and balance] doesn’t pass because certain GOP holdouts are unwilling to vote on any legislation that raises the debt ceiling, then we will end up with McConnell’s plan by default.

No pun intended.

Emperor Norton on July 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

In normal economic conditions, there’s no conflict between a balanced budget and entitlement programs.

That’s not entirely true. It depends on the entitlement programs and the size of the federal budget. With our curent entitlement programs it does not matter what the economic conditions are, we would be unlikely to have a balanced budget without massive tax increases on everyone (not just the “rich”).

It may be possible to have reasonable, modest entitlement programs and a balanced budget. But it is not possible to have our current entitlement programs (and god help us if Obamacare survives – that is going to be the most expensive entitlement program ever) and a balanced budget. We’ve only managed a balanced budget, what, 2 times in the last 40 years?

So, while your statement is not automatically untrue – it is not entirely correct either.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

That sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Isn’t that what our dear leader wants?

He pushes polices that punish achievement – higher and higher taxation.

He pushes a regulatory scheme that hamstrings business.

And he wants to add to this with Obamacare.

Doesn’t that sound like an: extremely anti-business growth policy?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Lon Chaney on July 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM

It has been looking that way since He got in there. But I don’t think it is deliberate.

The guy on CNBC said that the US will be asked to bail out Europe. Their banks can’t handle it. This guy, according to the moderator, was on a par with Moody’s and not in anyone’s pay.

My econ friend has been saying for weeks that the administration is up to something and a balanced budget amendment is the last thing they want.

No way should this process be so difficult.

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM

But you can’t apply shock therapy to the nation’s economy by gutting government spending before the economy has had a chance to recover from the great recession.

Yes, you can. Johan Norberg points out that European countries that initially had much more severe austerity programs are already recovering from the so called financial crisis. The US, on the other hand, hasn’t even had minor austerity program and we have yet to recover. We may very likely be several years into a lost American decade.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Why should the U.S. bail out Europe, the socialist pigs?

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Does the media ever mention that the Republicans won an election?

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Don’t ask me — my bail out love dried up about three years ago.

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM

I think that the House Republican Tea-Party contingent is overreaching and in doing so is giving up a great opportunity to make a real difference.
The House Republicans should pass a short, 6-8 month type debt ceiling increase, with dollar per dollar real spending reductions to be realized before September 2012, with no tax increase. Pass that in the house, send it to the senate where, if we had Republican solidarity it would pass or be blamed on the senate democrats if it failed. If it passed it would go to Obama, which would be a lose-lose for him, but a win for America if it he signed it. If he did not sign it, whatever negative result followed would be the clear result of his agenda-driven decision.
As Sancho Panza said: Greed broke the sack. I fear that the real conservatives in the house are about to demonstrate this truth.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 18, 2011 at 11:56 AM

GaltBlvnAtty on July 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM

US Credit Rating Downgraded from AAA to AA+

Emperor Norton on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Every time I start to pay attention with any enthusiasm to Warren Buffet, I recall that he was among Obama’s primary supporters in the 2008 election (and I’m guessing he still is). So his screws are too loose to be taken seriously, despite his wealth. His political views are desperately wonky.

Lourdes on July 18, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Warren Buffett is a Billionaire he’s simply paying lip service to both sides of the political aisle. The wealthy buy political influence…they pander to whoever is in power. They grease the skids in their own favor :) I doubt seriously that Buffett is so invested in Obama, that if he loses in 2012, he won’t cozy up to whoever wins the Presidency. Think Tom Friedman, when the Republicans were in power he was carrying their water – Obama won so now he is carrying the progressive’s water. It’s just people with money doing the old D.C. Shuffle. How to make friends and influence people LOL!

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Why should the U.S. bail out Europe, the socialist pigs?

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM

The more important question is, how long will China continue lending us money to write checks to people who do not work?

rockmom on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Haven’t had time to comb through the report yet, but…

What kind of growth did CBO project for GDP? Because if that’s off, those ratios could change. A lot.

taznar on July 18, 2011 at 1:58 PM

The more important question is, how long will China continue lending us money to write checks to people who do not work?

rockmom on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

They need the U.S. more than vice-versa, if the former had gonads and real leaders. Alas, both sides are beholden and corrupt. All out!

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I’m not positive, but I believe that the BBA language in the house’s bill requires only that congress pass the amendment, not that the States’ ratify it.

That’s an important qualification.

Yes, you can. Johan Norberg points out that European countries that initially had much more severe austerity programs are already recovering from the so called financial crisis

Those are only the countries with much tighter banking regulation and that experienced nothing close to the near collapse of the US financial system.

You have to wonder if ignoring business leaders is such a wise approach, especially men like Bill Pimco who demand near universal respect. It’s not sensible to pursue a policy that handcuffs the ability of the US government to deal with extreme economic events. It would make the US a far less stable place to do business than Germany or China where such budgetary restrictions don’t exist.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

With our curent entitlement programs it does not matter what the economic conditions are, we would be unlikely to have a balanced budget without massive tax increases on everyone (not just the “rich”).

It may be possible to have reasonable, modest entitlement programs and a balanced budget. But it is not possible to have our current entitlement programs (and god help us if Obamacare survives – that is going to be the most expensive entitlement program ever) and a balanced budget. We’ve only managed a balanced budget, what, 2 times in the last 40 years?

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You will notice that when dealing with this Particular Obama Supporter that she will ignore those questions that don’t help her push her National Socialist talking points.

Her contention here is that we are in a crisis and therefore we need to throw away all logic and reason and just try to throw money around in the Hope something will Change.

And if it doesn’t well, that okay, a continuing crisis helps them out anyways.

All the better to spread the wealth around they always say.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Doesn’t this seem preemptive?

Cindy Munford on July 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Warren Buffett is a Billionaire he’s simply paying lip service to both sides of the political aisle. The wealthy buy political influence…they pander to whoever is in power. They grease the skids in their own favor :) I doubt seriously that Buffett is so invested in Obama, that if he loses in 2012, he won’t cozy up to whoever wins the Presidency. Think Tom Friedman, when the Republicans were in power he was carrying their water – Obama won so now he is carrying the progressive’s water. It’s just people with money doing the old D.C. Shuffle. How to make friends and influence people LOL!

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Yeah, you just summed up crony capitalism.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

There is a huge difference between goods and rights.

Only the clueless don’t understand and the looters like to keep the masses clueless.

Media, you Onbama-azzcrawlers, may the devil strike you all.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Question- would requiring a constitutional amendment which must be ratified by the states add another dimension of ongoing crisis? It’s time for crisis mode to end, the US economy doesn’t need default armageddon hanging over it for the next year. That sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You forgot the rule – never let a crisis go to waste, and if you don’t have a crisis manufacture a crisis. Aug 2nd was an arbitrary date picked out of Tim Geithner’s butt. He probably has a planned his summer vacation around it SNARK.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Man is the lsm quoting that cbs poll as gospel
big time
Cripe

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Yeah, you just summed up crony capitalism.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Yep, and we have at least 18 more months of it. Goldman Sachs is bullish on Mitt Romney. Is this because they think he is one of them? We need to end the unholy alliance with wall street insiders not prolong it.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Those are only the countries with much tighter banking regulation and that experienced nothing close to the near collapse of the US financial system.

They still put austerity cuts into effect big time – not all Euros did. The ones that did, are recovering. It was painful, but at least they have a fighting chance now. We haven’t even begun to get serious about cuts. BTW, a lot of European countries have suffered through the pain more than us. The US has been buffering the pain for, what, 4 years now? I suppose you could say we’ve been buffering the pain for a longer amount of time, but we’ve really ramped up operations the last few years. It’s not sustainable. We have a choice. Either follow proven ways of quick recovery or not.

You have to wonder if ignoring business leaders is such a wise approach, especially men like Bill Pimco who demand near universal respect.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

A healthy economy does not cave to the demands of wealthy businessmen. What you seem to be advocating is blatant fascism. The government and wealthy businessmen get in bed while the economy fails to recover in any significant way.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

cmsinaz,they need to see this.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Doesn’t this seem preemptive?

Cindy Munford on July 18, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Don’t call my bluff Eric….

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Yep, and we have at least 18 more months of it. Goldman Sachs is bullish on Mitt Romney. Is this because they think he is one of them? We need to end the unholy alliance with wall street insiders not prolong it.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Agreed. It is, after all, a huge reason why we got to where we are.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Yep, and we have at least 18 more months of it. Goldman Sachs is bullish on Mitt Romney. Is this because they think he is one of them? We need to end the unholy alliance with wall street insiders not prolong it.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM

To Goldman there is no difference btw. Obama and Romney.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 2:09 PM

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You forgot the rule – never let a crisis go to waste, and if you don’t have a crisis manufacture a crisis. Aug 2nd was an arbitrary date picked out of Tim Geithner’s butt. He probably has a planned his summer vacation around it SNARK.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:04 PM

That’s part and parcel for them – create a banking crisis starting with the Communist Reinvestment Act and use that to attain more power.

Use a crisis created by the Fast and Furious Walkergate scandal to attain more power via gun control.

Use the entitlement crisis from program created by fellow Democrats to threaten seniors and raise taxes.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM

It would make the US a far less stable place to do business than Germany or China where such budgetary restrictions don’t exist.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Wrong. The people of the world, which includes the world’s investors, respect the People of the United States, not the US government. Investors around the world, seeing that the Americans are forcing their government to abide by fundamental American priciples, would once again pour investments into the US.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 18, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Promote this, about the true crimals of the world/land.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Germany or China where such budgetary restrictions don’t exist.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Say what?

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I was watching Varney and Company on FBN this morning. They addressed the downgrading by these different credit rating agencies. They used Portugal as an example. All of Europe was supposed to be devastated when they down graded Portugal. In stead the markets shrugged it’s shoulders Meh.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:17 PM

I have been deeply troubled by the nation’s growing dependence on deficit spending over the last decade,

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 1:33 PM

You were concerned when Bush was in office and deficits were $500B.

When Obama is in office and deficits are $1.5T your concern suddenly evaporates.

How odd.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM

So when is the dumb@$$ in chief going to submit that “comprehensive and balanced framework” to the House?

MNHawk on July 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM

It will die in the senate because the GOP called he bluff.

Then everybody hold on it will get very bumpy from here on out. A zombie apocalypse will have better outcome than what will come.

tjexcite on July 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Only the deranged mind of a liberal can say he’s concerned with too much debt and the only solution to too much debt is incurring more debt. I honestly wish I lived in their fantasy world, life would be a lot easier not having to conform to the laws of reality.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Those are only the countries with much tighter banking regulation and that experienced nothing close to the near collapse of the US financial system.

That isn’t true. Besides it is completely irrelevant to the point you are attempting to respond to.

You claimed that cuts in gov’t spending would harm the economy. the response was that it would not and reference was made to countries that enacted severe austarity measures.

Whether those countries have “stricter banking regulations” or their recession wasn’t as severe has no bearing on whether they a) had a recession and debt problem; b) instituted austerity to deal with the same; and c) whether it worked.

I would also point out that b/c of European socialism (which lefties like you love) many European countries have mostly had around 9% or higher unemployment for the last several decades. So, in reality their ecomic problems have been worse for a longer period of time. They were just used to what we consider bad economies.

Occasionally you seem to want to debate in good faith, but then you throw it all out the windo and just make crap up and throw around nonsense – such as over the weekend when you claimed that all wealthy people or all successful capitalists are progressives and/or only progressives really believe in capitalism. And kept reiterating that Steve Jobs wants higher taxes as if that is proof of something.

Do you think before you type? Or is your liberalism so reflexive that you just assume facts to be true that you think would support your ideology and then go ahead and type the same?

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

You were concerned when Bush was in office and deficits were $500B.

When Obama is in office and deficits are $1.5T your concern suddenly evaporates.

How odd.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM

And it appears bayam is now in favor of eliminating debt ceilings… how odd, indeed.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM

It will die in the senate because the GOP called he bluff.

Then everybody hold on it will get very bumpy from here on out. A zombie apocalypse will have better outcome than what will come.

tjexcite on July 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM

It sure will give the TEA Party fuel.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I will say that I think you did a better job of responding to the goal post shifting.

I don’t understand bayam’s reasoning. It seems to ignore all easily documented success stories and instead, as you point out, rely on Steve Jobs’ desires.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

I’m sick and tired of the argument that not raising the debt limit will raise interest rates and this is a bad thing. We need higher rates to stop the runaway inflation. Let rates rise.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

After the House passes the bill…

… they should have Allen West deliver it to the Senate with a note attached:

“Suck on It!”

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Germany or China where such budgetary restrictions don’t exist.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Say what?

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I’m guessing she means that the executive can borrow as much as it wants without requiring any approval of a legislative branch. Much like Tom Friedman, she believes we would be so much better off w/o that pesky constitution and/or if we had a gov’t more like China’s that could do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted.

Either way, a leftist’s true colors showing. Not for nothing that every single tyranical gov’t of the last 100 years has been of the left. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. It is an ideology that believes in centralized gov’t power over the individual (“communal” if you will). If we would just let the “smart people” run things, we would live in utopia.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Germany or China where such budgetary restrictions don’t exist.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Say what?

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Maybe the idea is that in those other countries, they can make money out of thin air?

Or maybe it’s that they don’t mind if they royally Obama their economy……

Nope, can’t figure that one out either.

Good question – bet you she doesn’t answer it.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Barack Obama: I’m ready to compromise, I have put entitlements on the table. Just send me something I can sign.

Barack Obama, if you pass Cut, Cap, and Balance and send it to me, I will veto it.

WTF!

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I’m sick and tired of the argument that not raising the debt limit will raise interest rates and this is a bad thing. We need higher rates to stop the runaway inflation. Let rates rise.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

Agreed. It will be painful, but what’s worse? Going through some short term pain to come to real recovery or wallowing in our own waste for a decade to emerge as a moderately strong economy?

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:27 PM

I’m sick and tired of the argument that not raising the debt limit will raise interest rates and this is a bad thing. We need higher rates to stop the runaway inflation. Let rates rise.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:24 PM

They are using inflation to suck back in – all that extra money they printed, you remember QE whatever the f’ were up to now.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Barack Obama: I’m ready to compromise, I have put entitlements on the table. Just send me something I can sign.

Barack Obama, if you pass Cut, Cap, and Balance and send it to me, I will veto it.

WTF!

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:26 PM

In Dem / Media minds, compromise is the GOP giving democrats 50% of what the democrats want. What the GOP wants is irrelevent to compromise.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM

I’m guessing she means that the executive can borrow as much as it wants without requiring any approval of a legislative branch. Much like Tom Friedman, she believes we would be so much better off w/o that pesky constitution and/or if we had a gov’t more like China’s that could do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted.

I’m guessing that too, but economically, the notion of no budgetary restrictions just seems odd or a blatant lie. It sort of contradicts the notion of value and money altogether.

Either way, a leftist’s true colors showing. Not for nothing that every single tyranical gov’t of the last 100 years has been of the left. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. It is an ideology that believes in centralized gov’t power over the individual (“communal” if you will). If we would just let the “smart people” run things, we would live in utopia.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

True

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM

rockmom on July 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

Living like animals

China will do so until they find a way to make us expendable as a trading partner and as a less vital ingredient of the deliberately undervalued Yuan.

Both of these will come to pass after our economy is taken to a Greek/Chicago level of performance.

We will then be in the position of a rent a HD TV customer or cashing checks before the end of the month to pay bills.

Think this is nuts? Look at the houses that had Mercedes and landscaping and pools and loads of debt.

They ended up worse than some area’s slums.

Put idiots in charge of the money and see where it leads.

IlikedAUH2O on July 18, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Maybe the idea is that in those other countries, they can make money out of thin air?

Or maybe it’s that they don’t mind if they royally Obama their economy……

Nope, can’t figure that one out either.

Good question – bet you she doesn’t answer it.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Isn’t that what the US should keep doing? Making “money” out of thing air. This is just economic suicide. Even if we could convince all Americans (for example) that a dollar is something of more worth than the paper it’s printed on, what’s to say the Chinese (for example) will continue to buy this notion. The evidence says that’s not going to happen.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:25 PM

You pegged it earlier:

Do you think before you type? Or is your liberalism so reflexive that you just assume facts to be true that you think would support your ideology and then go ahead and type the same?

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I think that indicates that this particular obama supporter doesn’t.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:32 PM

In Dem / Media minds, compromise is the GOP giving democrats 50% of what the democrats want. What the GOP wants is irrelevent to compromise.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Agreed. Raising the debt ceiling is a huge compromise! Asking for higher taxes is more than compromise.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Agreed. It will be painful, but what’s worse? Going through some short term pain to come to real recovery or wallowing in our own waste for a decade to emerge as a moderately strong economy?

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:27 PM

According to George W Bush who listened to these same financial geniuses. He had to destroy the Free Market System to Save The Free Market System. As I recall, Newt Gingrich was against TARP, before he was for it. He was making the same argument you just made. I have argued it’s why Obama won in November of 2008. This is was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and Independents went for Obama. Believing that Obama was some kind of centrist. We all know how that turned out.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

RE: rising rates

The libtard MSM doesn’t get that 1+1 = 2. You can lower rates and lower cost of borrowing. But what good is that lower cost of borrowing if the lower rates lead to inflation?

Sure you save $100 a month on your mortgage. But the cost of gas goes to $5 causing you to spend an extra $100 on gas every month. Or you can increase rates, raise the cost of a mortgage by $100 but gas goes to $2 again, saving you $100 in gas every month.

It’s a zero sum game.

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

One of Obama’s strongest cards is that he knows senate Republicans are wimps.

GaltBlvnAtty on July 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM

According to George W Bush who listened to these same financial geniuses. He had to destroy the Free Market System to Save The Free Market System. As I recall, Newt Gingrich was against TARP, before he was for it. He was making the same argument you just made. I have argued it’s why Obama won in November of 2008. This is was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and Independents went for Obama. Believing that Obama was some kind of centrist. We all know how that turned out.

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

I don’t even know how to respond. You pretty much wrapped it up. Destroying Capitalism to save it just doesn’t make sense to me; however, full disclosure, I never bought into Communism either.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Indeed schadenfreude

With a huge dem skew to boot

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM

angryed on July 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Clearly most liberal democrats don’t understand the notion of balance.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM

That sounds very much like a demand for eternal deficit spending, with no attempt at any discipline whatsoever.

That’s exactly what it is, and that’s why Republican’s should hold the line and not raise the credit limit, the Democrats have committed themselves to an indefensible last-stand and the only way out of it for them is humiliation or if the Republican Party sacrifices itself to save the Democrat Party.

FloatingRock on July 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM

full disclosure, I never bought into Communism either.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Me either. I get Socialism, they are selling free lunches. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Wimpy, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”.
This phrase is now commonly used to illustrate fiscal irresponsibility

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4