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

CALLING THE BLUFF ONCE ISN’T ENOUGH.

IF CCB/BALANCED BUDGET FAILS, THERE’S NO REASON WHY IT CAN’T BE SUBMITTED AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN………………….

EL on July 18, 2011 at 2:44 PM

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

It was always politics. The politicians could not allow people or companies to suffer for their poor decisions and had to be seen “doing something”.

I firmly believe that if we had simply allowed the various banks and GM to go bankrupt, we would be in a recovery mode right now. Instead, we dragged it out and made it worse – all while saddling ourselves with mountains more debt.

Yes, there would have been pain involved in that choice, but I think the pain would have been more short lived and manageable and would have led to a better long-term outcome.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

There it is….GOP starving the seniors, they never tire of the same ol, same ol…
What he is saying is…it is either seniors or the SEIU…

right2bright on July 18, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Call his bluff, GOP.

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on July 18, 2011 at 2:46 PM

I firmly believe that if we had simply allowed the various banks and GM to go bankrupt, we would be in a recovery mode right now. Instead, we dragged it out and made it worse – all while saddling ourselves with mountains more debt.

Yes, there would have been pain involved in that choice, but I think the pain would have been more short lived and manageable and would have led to a better long-term outcome.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I think we would have been in recovery by now and I bet out unemployment numbers wouldn’t have been worse.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM

There it is….GOP starving the seniors, they never tire of the same ol, same ol…
What he is saying is…it is either seniors or the SEIU…

right2bright on July 18, 2011 at 2:46 PM

You would think that at some point the seniors would stop believing it. Same with the race-baiting. You would think that at some point black people would stop believing that voting for a republican would result in segregation and jim crowe. But, for some reason, both constituencies keep buying it.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Any word if he threw another girlie-man hissy fit and stormed out?

pilamaye on July 18, 2011 at 12:48 PM

At his most sociable he may have only given them the famous Obama middle finger.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM

It sounds like Obama needs to eat his peas with a side of kale.

ErnstBlofeld on July 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Phht. Peas are your recommended diet. Little Bammie will stick with the Wagyu beef and the lobster tails, thank you.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I am not too sure about that, the problem was much deeper and greater than most anyone thought…however, there could have been a better way.
“Bailing out” isn’t that bad if it is done prudently, but this “bail out” was wholesale giving money away with no real accounting.

right2bright on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 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

Yup, thought of that as soon as I wrote it. It’s all supply and demand – the more of a supply the less of a demand. Paper money is all full faith and credit and a little paper stock and ink.

They are in effect, stealing our money and assets by flooding the market with paper and devaluing our currency.

That also sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM

I sure do miss having an actual President of the United States of America.

kingsjester on July 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM

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.

That statement from the WH is pure political talk and unrealistic posturing. ObaMao is projecting his own ideology onto others.

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.

At the same time earlier in the paragraph, he threatens seniors, here he simply is pushing his programs of O-care, high-speed rail, and green jobs. All of these are damaging to our economy; nonr hsve the capability of growing real jobs of productivity. He even slips in his dopy campaign slogan. (Who is politicking here really?)

The WH blathers about “protecting critical investments,” but there again, ObaMao confuses throwing money away on his transformation of America as an “investment.” Someone with cajones should point out how much money already has been thrown at education, only to expand a bureaucracy and to inflate college tuition.

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM

both constituencies keep buying it.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Liberals will embrace a lie, before truth, if it is liberal, they are told what to believe.
Proof? Obama was against raising the debt limit, and was supported, now he is for it and is supported…as long as it pushes their agenda, it doesn’t matter if it is legal, unconstitutional, immoral, or just plain stupid.

right2bright on July 18, 2011 at 2:53 PM

So Obama is saying, “Unless we spend an unlimited amount of money, you are limiting my ability to ‘invest in eduacation.’” But isn’t that the whole point of having a budget in the first place? It limits your ability to spend money. That’s why its called a budget: You are budgeting your resources. Now there may be many, many more ways to spend addtional money wisely, but you don’t have the money. If you did they would already be part of your budget. He doesn’t seem to understand what a budget represents.

Fred 2 on July 18, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Sounds like someone needs a nap. And a good swat on the arse.

capejasmine on July 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Call his bluff, GOP.
////////

Keep it up boys,we here in the flyover states are pulling for you!

ohiobabe on July 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Bluffalo BO. Call the bully on it. He has already bankrupted this nation. How dare he challenge the adults in the room.

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM

That also sounds like an extremely anti-business growth policy.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM

And gold is at an all time high of $1,600+ per ounce…

right2bright on July 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Paper money is all full faith and credit and a little paper stock and ink.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM

I’m not a fan of paper money; however, the biggest problem with it probably arises when you have economic “geniuses” that believe we just keep printing more to pay for everything.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Bill Pimco
bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

It’s a good rule when demonizing those who disagree with you to appear like you know what you are talking about by showing your basic knowledge of the company & people running it.

PIMCO isn’t a last name it’s an acronym for Pacific Investment Management Company. The co-founder is Bill Gross. Tell us what else you know about PIMCO, other than that they don’t support Obama & are dumping US treasuries which Obama & co don’t like because it exposes what is happening.

batterup on July 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM

I sure do miss having an actual President of the United States of America.

kingsjester on July 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM
/////
Yeah,it seems like a lifetime doesn’t it?

ohiobabe on July 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Bill Pimco
bayam on July 18, 2011 at 2:00 PM

It’s a good rule when demonizing those who disagree with you to appear like you know what you are talking about by showing your basic knowledge of the company & people running it.

PIMCO isn’t a last name it’s an acronym for Pacific Investment Management Company. The co-founder is Bill Gross. Tell us what else you know about PIMCO, other than that they don’t support Obama & are dumping US treasuries which Obama & co don’t like because it exposes what is happening.

batterup on July 18, 2011 at 2:56 PM

burn

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:59 PM

The GOP picked this fight. It’s not like our hands are clean – the House voted for a good portion of the spending we now don’t want to pay for.

As long as Obama gets to sit back and mouth generalities and demonize Republicans, he is very comfortable. Force him to be specific and watch him squirm. Neither he nor anyone still on staff at high levels is equipped to put together a budget. They are leftist dreamers, not detail people.

Pass a clean but small hike, and tell the Great Pretender when he comes up with specific matching cuts verified by CBO, he can get another small hike. More cuts, then another hike, etc.

If he chooses to veto – or block from Senate consideration – a “clean” bill, just as he asked for except in amount, any consequences are on him.

Adjoran on July 18, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Lets go into 2012 with this rejection of fiscal sanity as our ad. But take the ads out immediately questioning his motivation. Does he seek what is good for america or does he truly seek to take it down. If he vetoes this, it becomes a very responsible question.Now, mores than ever , we can demand to know who he really is.

Start discrediting the parasitical voters who would take us all down for their own free lunch.

Perhaps the left really wants to raise our unemployment numbers all along to create a larger dependency class, after all they loved Cloward Piven thinking, why not deliberate unemployment. It take no brains to overspend gazillions and scare the blazes out of those who do the employing with EPA Horror stories, a president who openly attacks entire professions(Doctors) and businesss(Insurance) and steals what he wants (Obama-motors)

Don L on July 18, 2011 at 3:05 PM

Now if the GOP House leadership could summon the cojones to tell the Dem/RINO Senate: “No dice on McConnell’s plan, it’s dead on arrival.”

That would force the man-child to sit up!

TheRightMan on July 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Force him to be specific and watch him squirm.

Exactly. He has the responsibility to prioritize spending. Force him to.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 3:07 PM

Lead, or go home.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Gee, were there any recycled buzzwords that he didn’t shoehorn into this?

Count to 10 on July 18, 2011 at 3:23 PM

it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual

Ya mean like constantly raising the debt limit Barry?

GarandFan on July 18, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Any thoughts about this Stanley Kurtz post at NRO earlier this morning? It links to an Asia Times post by Spengler.

The redoubtable Spengler of the Asia Times (channeled by David Goldman), offers a sobering and entirely plausible scenario showing how Obama could take advantage of the debt ceiling battle to undercut the Tea Party and the Republicans, stoke class warfare, secure re-election, and get the banks to fund his favored projects to boot. Spengler is a fan of the Tea Party, but thinks the McConnell plan as the best way to prevent Obama from off-loading the onus of the bad economy onto the Republicans. Whatever you think of the debt ceiling quandary, Spengler’s case is worth a look.

Spengler has been a friend to Radical-in-Chief, by the way. His thoughtful reading of the book, “Obama’s Hidden Radical Past,” came out just when Osama bin-Laden met his end, and it didn’t seem appropriate to blog about the review at that time. In today’s piece, Spengler adds some new thoughts on the book, highlighting Obama’s pragmatic reasons for passing over the opportunity to nationalize the banks in 2009, and noting how the president could use a debt ceiling crisis to advance his preferred practice of gaining de facto, rather than formal, government control over the private economy. A particularly interesting feature of Spengler’s original review of Radical-in-Chief is his charting of income redistribution in the United States.

Spengler’s inside knowledge of America’s banking system puts him in a strong position to game out what we may soon be facing. Agree with his position on the McConnell plan or not, best read his scenario now before perhaps facing it, or something like it, unprepared.

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Paper money is all full faith and credit and a little paper stock and ink.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 2:50 PM

I’m not a fan of paper money; however, the biggest problem with it probably arises when you have economic “geniuses” that believe we just keep printing more to pay for everything.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 2:55 PM

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: They don’t know, what they don’t know.

Maybe trying to print our way out of this mess isn’t working – along with all their other hair-brained schemes.

And maybe they should stop stealing from everyone who has any money – either through taxation or inflating the currency.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 3:40 PM

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM

excellent

fore more years’ sticker

heh

cmsinaz on July 18, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Now, backstage, the Chinese dribble praise and support for the Euro while buying up vineyards in Burgundy. Welcome Genghis Khan, 21st century style. Barry and the Crew will be there to curtsey and scrape and offer meaniful dialog.

Limerick on July 18, 2011 at 3:57 PM

President Cloward-Piven!!!

Collapse the System……..and rebuild it the way you want too!

The countdown has begun………..

PappyD61 on July 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM

Karl Marx: Socilism is the state between Capitalism and Communism.

Socialism must have a central government that has the ability to control all aspects of the people it draws its revenue from. Socialism can only exist as long as it can redistribute wealth. when there is no longer any wealth to redistribute and no credit to borrow on, then Socialism creates a failed government.

In short; Socialism has to fail to succeed.

The success of socialism creates a state financial ruin results in the state taking over all means of production and orgainization of the people’s contribution to the state and where the state needs them to live

This state results in the formation of the next step in Karl Marx social justice; communism.

The goal of communism is social justice where from each according to their ability; as desided by the state, and to each according to their need; as determined by the state.

Socialism can not exist within the structure a republic as we have, where states share in governing their citizens with the federal government.

Socialism requires a Democracy, which is a form of government with one central control power that makes all laws and decisions for its citizens.

Socialism and to a greater extent, communism must be able to make decisions that the state determines are needed. A constitution that would control it has to irrelevent to what the state does. This is what the socilist have been working towards for decades and now, the control of the government in their hand, are pushing to finish that need.

The Soviet Union had a constitution that promoted freedom and rights on par with ours. It remained in place but became irrelevent to the point that not even the police and most judges knew what was in it, or what rights the people had.

The lack of no one being aware of their rights resulted in TSA style pat downs any time or place that the police decided to do it. They removed any thing of value they wanted and it was best, as it is with the TSA today,to not say anything or try and keep what they wanted to avoid further legal difficulties.

It might be of interest that the Soviet Constitution has the provision of “seperation of church and state”. The socialist have lifted it from there and transplanted it into ours.

Should it be mention that in the Soviet Union and it child state, Cuba, the monthly wage is under $10 or half that in most cases. It is basically an allowance to buy the states manufactured goods created for sell to the citizens.

Franklyn on July 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Thanks. Excellent piece. Here’s the link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272076/spengler-debt-ceiling-stanley-kurtz

It’s not that I wish to agree with McConnell (who is weak and is proposing his idea out of weakness) but rather that I see that we will indeed lose the narrative, as Spengler points out. Whatever the perils of the shutdown (mythical or not), or that Obama’s fingerprints are all over the economic meltdown, the truth is Republicans are utterly inept at narrative control and will lose a showdown and possibly drag down the tea party with them. Obama will have executive powers to dissimulate to an extreme under cover of the “crisis.”

rrpjr on July 18, 2011 at 4:12 PM

Franklyn on July 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

I often think how much better the world would be had the lunatic Marx been run over by a bus, or a horse, before he had the opportunity to write his execrable book.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I often think how much better the world would be had the lunatic Marx been run over by a bus, or a horse, before he had the opportunity to write his execrable book.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Yet, ask a lefty and they’ll demand that Sarah Palin’s books be banned.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM

He looks infirm.

Key West Reader on July 18, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Pappy Reid spake.

I often think how much better the world would be had the lunatic Marx been run over by a bus, or a horse, before he had the opportunity to write his execrable book.

slickwillie2001 on July 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Oh my, and Engels too, and Lenin. I despise them, then all their adherents. May the devil strike them all.

Schadenfreude on July 18, 2011 at 4:30 PM

STAND FIRM – DON’T GIVE IN TO THIS PATHETIC AND BASELESS THREAT. It’s time to stop the B.S. in D.C. and do the People’s work. Obama doesn’t have any cards.

IlonaE on July 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM

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

Thank you, Mr. President!

crr6 on July 18, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Let him veto what America knows it needs.

/And for the love of Pete get him back on AF1 and on the campaign trail! For the love of Pete!!!

/who exactly, is Pete?

Key West Reader on July 18, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Cut, Cap, and Balance is a piece of political BS. It’s exactly the kind of insincere, self-serving stunt that has eroded the American people’s faith in the Republican party.

It may play well here among the angry white male exurban readers of Hot Air, but don’t fool yourself.

(Obviously, the Dems do the same kind of thing all the time, but that’s not what this thread seemed to be about.)

bifidis on July 18, 2011 at 4:52 PM

John “My Friends” McCain is on Hannity right now…

… He keeps bringing up the government shut down of 1995 and being blamed for it.

You can hear the fear in his voice…

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Cut, Cap, and Balance is a piece of political BS. It’s exactly the kind of insincere, self-serving stunt that has eroded the American people’s faith in the Republican party.

And put a generic republican ahead of Obama in national polls, and shows the republicans likely to win a significant Senate majority and likely more house seats as well.

If that is the kind of erosion we have, I say let’s have more!!

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 5:04 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? That sounds very much like a demand for eternal deficit spending, with no attempt at any discipline whatsoever.

Ed, where was your strong support for a balanced budget amendment when the US was experiencing supply side bliss under Bush? If you remember, in those days annoying Wall Street and business leaders, including Paul O’neill in Treasury, were calling the deep tax cuts matched by increased spending grossly irresponsible. When did you become so concerned about the deficit?

Cut, Cap, and Balance is a piece of political BS. It’s exactly the kind of insincere, self-serving stunt that has eroded the American people’s faith in the Republican party.

It may play well here among the angry white male exurban readers of Hot Air, but don’t fool yourself.

(Obviously, the Dems do the same kind of thing all the time, but that’s not what this thread seemed to be about.)

Or better yet, Obama could present his version of deficit reduction which consists of 7 dollars in spending cuts for every 3 dollars in new revenue or tax increases. Then both parties can fully demonstrate their ability to play political games while the nation slides into the kind of uncertainty that stifles business growth, scares the capital markets, and deters foreign investment. Is there a better formula for pushing today’s stagnant economy off the cliff?

Conservatives claim to hold an unparalleled understanding of free markets and love to talk about their admiration of capitalism. So it’s surprising that so many were caught completely off-guard by the horrified response from business leaders and the markets to the prospect of a US default. I can’t remember a situation when a wider gulf separated the agenda of corporate America and conservatives. Holding the economy and markets hostage to politics is no way to run a country based on a free market economy.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM

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

WTF? When did this become the core American commitment?

The US government should ensure that we all remain free and able to pursue our happiness, right? Or did Barry change that somehow?

disa on July 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Ed, where was your strong support for a balanced budget amendment when the US was experiencing supply side bliss under Bush?

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM

bogus post – are you supporting the deliberate destruction of the US economy? That is the point of this exercise of Obama’s, you know.

disa on July 18, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Today’s O’bama’s 909th day in office. Seems like 909 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4TW-A-j8z4

Del Dolemonte on July 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Ed, where was your strong support for a balanced budget amendment when the US was experiencing supply side bliss under Bush?

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM

And where were you back in 2006, when Senator O’bama voted against raising the debt ceiling?

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.

]

Good, Obama, we’re cutting like crazy, come on over and join us if you really want bipartisan common ground.

Don’t liberals ever tire of using lying feel-good phraseology to do their evil?

Don L on July 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Ed, where was your strong support for a balanced budget amendment when the US was experiencing supply side bliss under Bush?

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:06 PM

bogus post – are you supporting the deliberate destruction of the US economy? That is the point of this exercise of Obama’s, you know.

disa on July 18, 2011 at 5:23 PM

This kind of storyline may find believers here but it’s not going to win with independent voters. Boehner, McConnell, and Obama are all patriots acting in good faith but with different beliefs and pressure from their constituencies. Too many people need to get over their sense of victimization, take responsibility for their own success, and stop blaming everything on the government.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

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

The man responsible for the slaughter of millions of babies wants to lecture us about human dignity?

Don L on July 18, 2011 at 5:33 PM

And where were you back in 2006, when Senator O’bama voted against raising the debt ceiling?

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

John “My Friends” McCain is on Hannity right now…

… He keeps bringing up the government shut down of 1995 and being blamed for it.

You can hear the fear in his voice…

Seven Percent Solution on July 18, 2011 at 4:54 PM

I think that people on the left and right who see this as an opportunity to prove a point that makes the opposition look bad are misguided. The longer this situation continues- and it’s already causing real damage to the US and its economy- the worse the outcome for every politician and for every American.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-18/euro-weakens-asia-stocks-decline-on-debt-crisis-concerns-as-silver-rises.html

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM

oo many people need to get over their sense of victimization, take responsibility for their own success, and stop blaming everything on the government.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Well let me count the ways that your nice-nice approach is doomed to fail. Who’s ruining the economy? I find it is the gov’t for the most part. The victim is the public now and in the future unless we do something about it NOW- in spending bills, debt ceiling, tax policy, it will only get worse. It is kinda important -while being accommodating like most moderates espouse, is fruitless (and gutless).

Fuquay Steve on July 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM

And where were you back in 2006, when Senator O’bama voted against raising the debt ceiling?

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

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Were these words symbolic? Indeed, America does deserve better – but not if we support Obama.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:45 PM

It was a symbolic vote to protest the massive deficit spending that was going on throughout the 2000′s
bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:38 PM

What horsesh*t. It was a political vote to embarrass Bush (like everything the Democrats did between 2001 and 2008). If it was a protest vote against deficit spending, why did he undertake the greatest binge of deficit spending in US history? Because he’s a grotesque hypocrit or because he’s a crypto socialist?

rrpjr on July 18, 2011 at 5:46 PM

So we know he’s a crappy poker player, now play back at him. Pass it. Let him veto it. Then the GOP ads will helpfully inform the voters that he did so. He loses the showdown in November ’12.

curved space on July 18, 2011 at 5:46 PM

The longer this situation continues- and it’s already causing real damage to the US and its economy- the worse the outcome for every politician and for every American.

Therefore the suggestion that the US immediately start making severe spending cuts.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:47 PM

The President has proposed a comprehensive and balanced framework that ensures we live within our means

Of course. He can’t re-distribute money if theres no deficit.

tx2654 on July 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM

Too many people need to get over their sense of victimization, take responsibility for their own success, and stop blaming everything on the government.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:49 PM

If it was a protest vote against deficit spending, why did he undertake the greatest binge of deficit spending in US history?

From 2001 to 2006, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. So while your description of the binge is accurate, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.

The sad truth is that this country doesn’t face a fiscal challenge- it faces a political one. This country has more than the financial means to reach a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit. If it doesn’t, there’s little doubt that the credit rating agencies will start downgrading the US, first at the federal level with corporate debt to follow. And that will be a very, very hard blow to the US economy.

Interesting fact- if the US collected the same % of GDP in taxes as Germany did, the deficit would disappear immediately with no spending cuts. Of course, raising taxes so high is a terrible idea. My point is that we’re not poor… we’re simply failing to balance the books and don’t need to be gripped by fear of immediate fiscal collapse when the economy is this weak.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Along with Cut, Balance and Cap, Congress should pass a bill requiring Social Security, interest on the debt, Veterans, Medicare and Medicaid get paid FIRST.

Let him veto BOTH bills.

Then the GOP can make some ads of their own.

JustTruth101 on July 18, 2011 at 5:56 PM

The sad truth is that this country doesn’t face a fiscal challenge- it faces a political one. This country has more than the financial means to reach a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit. If it doesn’t, there’s little doubt that the credit rating agencies will start downgrading the US, first at the federal level with corporate debt to follow. And that will be a very, very hard blow to the US economy.

So, you disagree with what Barack Obama said?

we’re simply failing to balance the books and don’t need to be gripped by fear of immediate fiscal collapse when the economy is this weak.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Tim Geithner is the one pushing fear. You are right in some regards. We do have a political problem. Obama could prioritize spending, but he refuses to. Instead he punts back to the divided congress in an attempt to delay making the cuts needed – the cuts that are NOT popular with his base.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:57 PM

From 2001 to 2006, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. So while your description of the binge is accurate, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

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.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Via Doug Ross -

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services upgraded Ohio’s debt rating just one day after it put the United States on “credit watch negative” on what it calls a rising risk of policy stalemate in the debt limit negotiations.

For Ohio, the rating was revised from “negative” to “stable” after Gov. John Kasich signed a new budget the ratings agency says will essentially balance the state’s finances for the next two years. S&P also said Ohio is experiencing a modest economic recovery which has stabilized revenue.

In making the upgrade, the agency also assigned a “AA+” long-term rating to Ohio’s $416.75 million general obligation bonds… “After a significant decline through the recession, Ohio’s economy is steadily recovering,” according to S&P’s statement issued Friday.

The agency listed factors such as Ohio’s unemployment rate has stabilized and fallen to 8.6 percent through May 2011 from a peak of 11 percent in March 2010. The also state experienced positive employment growth in 2010 and through the first quarter of 2011…

Then there’s Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels whose state is enjoying a 1.2 Billion dollar surplus. And he’s rewarding State employees with a one-time bonus of between $500-$1000.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Tim Geithner is the one pushing fear. You are right in some regards. We do have a political problem.

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.

Obama could prioritize spending, but he refuses to. Instead he punts back to the divided congress in an attempt to delay making the cuts needed – the cuts that are NOT popular with his base.

Obama, Boehner, and McConnell have respected the ongoing negotiations without constant press leaks, so we don’t know all the details of what’s on the table. But you’re certainly correct that many in Obama’s base oppose all and any cuts to social security or Medicare- and in many states, opinion polls reflect staunch opposition to entitlement cuts, period. That’s why for Obama it’s almost politically impossible to accept 100% cuts without any tax increases on the wealthy (supported by Greenspan, Bernanke, and Simpson by the way) to show his base as some kind of justification. Each side needs political cover. But as you said, no one can verify that Obama is willing to accept any cuts in entitlement programs. It’s pure speculation as to what’s in play.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM

From 2001 to 2006, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. So while your description of the binge is accurate, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Really? You don’t comprehend well. We already know that both parties have screwed us. Nice try.

The sad truth is that this country doesn’t face a fiscal challenge- it faces a political one. This country has more than the financial means to reach a $4 trillion reduction in the deficit. If it doesn’t, there’s little doubt that the credit rating agencies will start downgrading the US, first at the federal level with corporate debt to follow. And that will be a very, very hard blow to the US economy.

Interesting fact- if the US collected the same % of GDP in taxes as Germany did, the deficit would disappear immediately with no spending cuts. Of course, raising taxes so high is a terrible idea. My point is that we’re not poor… we’re simply failing to balance the books and don’t need to be gripped by fear of immediate fiscal collapse when the economy is this weak.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Fear. Weird Geithner has now set 4 dates for the financial armegeddon hmmm. Any chance that he is playing the fear card? We don’t need to raise the debt ceiling just yet. We will not default yet. We can meet our obligations on the short term. This rush by Obama is just a political game. Look at what MOODY’s said in their statement. Sheesh.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I agree that Geithner is pushing fear but it’s fear that he’s channeling from the markets and business leaders.
bayam on July 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Please. Common sense says it is not an issue. Agaim READ Moody’s statement. Why do you refuse to read what they even said? Why do you buy the hype and fear-mongering?

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:13 PM

From 2001 to 2006, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. So while your description of the binge is accurate, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

Beside the point. We were talking about Obama’s “symbolic” vote. He voted against raising the debt ceiling in order to embarrass Bush. In 2006 not one democrat voted to raise the debt ceiling. Obama and the democrats went on to engorge themselves on deficit spending. Now he and democrats want to raise the debt ceiling.

rrpjr on July 18, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Fear. Weird Geithner has now set 4 dates for the financial armegeddon hmmm. Any chance that he is playing the fear card?
CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:11 PM

He got that from the markets and business leaders.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Chip and???? You realize those dates have passed right?

“Moody’s considers the probability of a default on interest payments to be low but no longer to be de minimis,” Moody’s said in a statement.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM

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.

MeatHeadinCA on July 18, 2011 at 5:58 PM

When Nancy was made speaker, and first pounded the gavel, it was like Pavlov’s dog – it’s reflexive, they have been conditioned to tax and spend. That’s why whenever anyone disagrees with Obama they are a racist…See: progressives have dog whistle hearing, they can hear crap normal people can’t :)

Dr Evil on July 18, 2011 at 6:20 PM

And for the love of Pete get him back on AF1 and on the campaign trail! For the love of Pete!!!

/who exactly, is Pete?

Key West Reader on July 18, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Who is pete -That’s the guy that got Obama the White House job -you know him The Peter Principle!

Don L on July 18, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Bayam gee ya think if the Dems ever came up with a budget that might have helped?

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:25 PM

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

Barry’s profligate spending and poor fiscal policies, along with Bernanke’s quantitative easing bandaids, have devalued our money and seniors’ savings and pension plans. Barry has done more to damage the dignity of retirees than any other president in this nation’s history.

onlineanalyst on July 18, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Chip and???? You realize those dates have passed right?

“Moody’s considers the probability of a default on interest payments to be low but no longer to be de minimis,” Moody’s said in a statement.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:19 PM

I was playing off bay’s deflecting of blame away from Geithner.

Doesn’t this all sound like just another ‘Serious crisis’ the National Socialists are using to push their oppressive agenda?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Will the military be paid? We have 3 wars after all…

ladyingray on July 18, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Doesn’t this all sound like just another ‘Serious crisis’ the National Socialists are using to push their oppressive agenda?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 6:26 PM

No doubt. This is just a game for now. Do we need to shore up our finances ? Heck yeh but this deal here and the threats of cutting off granny’s monthly check are just sick.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

You have to understand that many on Wall Street are predicting complete armageddon.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 6:10 PM

You have to understand that many of Wall Street predicted that real estate values would never depreciate.

The current uncertainty not only threatens to roil the markets

Really? Where would the markets be right now if the debt ceiling had already been passed without any spending cuts? Where would the markets be right now if Obama raised taxes?

blink on July 18, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Okay, my guess is that bayam would say that the markets would be great – because there is nothing they like more than out of control taxation, out of control regulation and out of control spending..

Was that a good guess bayam?

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I’m a senior and I see through this crap, as do many other seniors.

Dhuka on July 18, 2011 at 6:53 PM

I’m a senior and I see through this crap, as do many other seniors.

Dhuka on July 18, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Not according to Juan McLame on Hannity’s radio show today…

ladyingray on July 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

No doubt. This is just a game for now. Do we need to shore up our finances ? Heck yeh but this deal here and the threats of cutting off granny’s monthly check are just sick.

CW on July 18, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Like I said the other day: Nice little Social Security check you have there, it sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

Chip on July 18, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I love it when a true marxist like Bayam pretends to like and understand capitalism or economics. And to pretend to like capitalism.

According to Bayam all rich people are progressives, all “great” capitalists are progressives, and all “responsible” business people support tax increases with vague promises of spending cuts in the future.

As we all know, since obama is so honest and doesn’t lie every other word, we can trust him when he says he will cut spending in teh future. Why, Obamacare alone will bring us a savings of negative $1 trillion dollars (that’s a trillion in new spending for idiots like Bayam who can’t do math).

Sell your b.s. somewhere else Bayam. We’ve heard your nonsense and lies for far too long. If you love Germany and its high taxes and perpetual high unemployment, by all means move there. Don’t try and force their idiotic policies on us. Like Gerry Brown says – there’s a perfect socialist utopia for all you leftsist to move to – it’s called Cuba. I hear they have the very best healthcare in gteh world.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Will the military be paid? We have 3 wars after all…

ladyingray on July 18, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Yes, we can pay the military, SS, Medicare and some other stuff with no problem.

We’ll just have to cut out half the government. I’m all for it!

darwin on July 18, 2011 at 7:14 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.

I honestly don’t think there has ever been a more dishonest person in teh white house than Obama. And that is county admitted perjurer Clinton. You litterally cannot count on anything he says from one day to the next. How is anyone supposed to negotiate with such a person? If he tells you something is blue at 10 a.m., he’ll be on the press calling his opponents names and saying yellow by noon. He is a child with little understanding of adult things.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Interesting fact, if the gov’t didn’t redistribute wealth and have entitlement programs it has no business having, we would have no debt or deficit.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I love it when a true marxist like Bayam pretends to like and understand capitalism or economics. And to pretend to like capitalism.

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.

bayam on July 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM

I honestly don’t think there has ever been a more dishonest person in teh white house than Obama. And that is county admitted perjurer Clinton.

Monkeytoe on July 18, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Clinton looks like George Washington compared to Obama.

darwin on July 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM

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

Communists are alive and well. In fact they’re flourishing … especially in Europe and here.

darwin on July 18, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4