Reid recognizes that McConnell has been told, in no uncertain terms, by Wall Street and other corporate interests, that the debt ceiling vote must NOT fail. Business knows perfectly well what risks face them otherwise and they will have NONE of it.

What's happened is that the"purity test" of the rigid right ideologues ran into the wall of practical reality. It's interesting to me to compare this situation seven months after I posted the following article to the 'Vine. Apart from from slower-than-expected growth, so far the analysis seems to be holding firm:

Several analysts have produced articles that go into detail about the severity of spending cuts necessary to immediately address the current Fedeal deficit and long-term national debt. They paint a pretty thorough picture - and present what is ultimately an "austerity plan" plan more drastic than those imposed in either Greece, Portugal or Ireland.

Such deep cuts not only would be answered with public fury, they are undesirable while the economic crisis persists - cutting spending in the face of recession is a serious mistake. Beyond that, the focus on short-term deficit and debt reduction ignores the broader importance of using government spending as a major policy tool - and ignores the lessons of history. But little matter, in the view of the more conservative Republican members of Congress - they see the cuts as a pathway to alter government at its very roots.

While most authorities agree that debt must be reduced, it is in the matter of approaching that issue that progressives and conservatives have differences. For example, under the new GOP-dominated House rules, every new dollar a measure would spend must be matched by a dollar of cuts from current expenditure. That overturns the prior "pay-as-you-go" rule, which permitted either offsetting spending cuts, or offsetting revenue increases.

The philosophy, according to new Speaker John Boehner, is that "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

To some extent, that is not a bad point of view - in that determined efforts to restrain government spending, and at least very serious consideration of those purposes for which spending is committed, create a more responsible and somber judgement about government expenditures. Nonetheless, revenue is in fact an issue, especially when tax policies discourage job creation at home, long-term capital investment in American business, and expansion of American manufacturing for goods desired in the global marketplace.

Also, the flat denial that sometimes spending, and government debt, have benefits that override pure fiscal conservatism is a serious error on the part of the Speaker and those who agree with him. And the denial that there is a revenue problem is likewise a significant error - but it is a duplicitous position, too, masking the intent of the House now to protect corporate and higher-income tax loopholes, exemptions, and policies that are extremely unpopular in the country.

In broad terms, the conflict is one of a philosophy of government - today's House majority wishes to change the philosophy that has evolved since the FDR Administration, in which government is seen as:

• distributing national resources where needs exist,
• developing institutions to oversee business practices,
• protection of natural resources (environmental regulation),
• safety of the food supply,
• promote public health and respond to epidemics,
• encourage American commerce abroad,
• promote education,
• protect civil rights,
• regulate labor relations,
• invest in public infrastructure,
• stabilize the money supply,
• and in times of economic distress mitigate the effects of recession while helping to bring the economy back to health.

In contrast, one faction in the GOP House majority takes the view that virtually all of those functions, where they are even admitted as a government function, are more properly the task of state governments. Some of the House majority would eliminate virtually every one of those functions.

The emerging mechanism for implementing the conservative philosophy of government is so-called debt reduction by deep cuts in government spending.

However, the spending cuts are not debt reduction, although they will aid in reducing current Federal deficits, which of course in time add to the national debt. Still it is impossible, and even undesirable in current conditions, to attempt to match present public expenses with present revenues.

Those who liken managing government finances to running a business or keeping the household books do not recognize that the government is not a business and that depending on circumstances, debt is both necessary and desirable.

Governments engage in very expensive, long-range activities that are not conducted for profit, opposite to the activities of a business. Whether those activities include costly wars, as the U.S. has been doing for 10 years, major highway construction, as the country is constantly doing, or massive emergency programs answering the demands of an economic collapse, as has been the case since 2008, they are undertaken in the public interest and paid for with long-term debt.

This practice evolved beginning in the 1690's, when the War of the League of Augsburg (1688-1697) financially exhausted Britain and France. France attempted to fund the war with short-term, high-interest loans and current receipts, eventually becoming so stressed that she accepted the Peace of Ryswick in 1697 with virtually nothing to show for the years of struggle.

Britain, however, in 1693 recognized that short-term defecit spending without making timely payments to vital suppliers, sailors and soldiers, was undermining the country and causing terrible hardship among the merchants, farmers, lumberjacks and all others involved. So in 1694 the Bank of England was born and the beginnings of a principle of national debt, amortized over time, was born. It ultimately financed England's industrialization and empire, enabling the country to weather economic troubles and wars and ultimately prevail in the contests of European powers for more than 200 years.

(See Peter Padfield,Tide of Empires, Vol. !!, 1654-1763, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., London, 1982)

Similarly, some public debt is called for under present circumstances in the United States. While the character and terms of the financial institutions' bailout is open to considerable criticism, the fact of its necessity is not. Neither was the preservation of a core American industry, auto manufacturing (despite the Libertarian ideology to let it fail, a bankrupt view in its own right).

Regardless of the carping of the right wing ideologues, the stimulus program of 2009-2010 clearly succeeded. And unlike many prior recessions - notably those of the early Reagan Administration, the G.H.W. Bush Administration, and the 2001-2002 recession of G.W. Bush's Administration - this recession is being accompanied by a slow but accelerating rate of job creation. Only 1.2 million jobs were created in 2010, but an economists' survey by CNN recently forecast between 2.5 and 3 million new jobs, at minimum, in 2011.

These and other events under President Obama's stewardship prevented both the risk of full-blown Depression, and preserved an economic foundation for more robust recovery than was anticipated in recent years. And it required that the government undertake debt in order to pursue that vital public interest.

The present GOP House majority is taking a very short-sighted view of the national debt and current-accounts defecit. In contrast, during his messages in 2009 and 2010, the President clearly outlined a long-range approach toward first, reducing defecit speding in a relatively few years, and second, attacking the size of the national debt. That approach is consistent with responsible broad management of public policy and obligations.

The President's approach also keeps faith with a philosophy of government that seeks to create social stability, enhance opportunity for individual advancement, encourage not only growth in small businesses but also (for the first time since 1980) rebuild American manufacturing capacity, sustain the health and well-being of all Americans, provide for the future through education, and nurture the helpless.

This philosophy of government is neither socialist nor Communist, as some on the far right complain, but instead a system in which the benefits of an open and vigorous society are accessible at all levels of the economic scale - and enable greater mobility for those willing to strive and create or sieze opportunity.

In contrast, the philosophy of government espoused by the GOP House majority now aggravates the stratification of social and economic classes, uses tax policy to transfer wealth from the middle and lower classes to the higher income class, promotes depression of wages and benefits for workers, abandons the sick, the elderly, the poor and the helpless, splinters national identity in favor of sectionalism, and with a vengeance reinstates the ancient warning, Caveat emptor (Buyer beware!), in all areas of business and consumer transactions.

An America that steadily restores her economy, generates jobs, incomes and revenues to refill the public Treasury, and shelters her people from the worst effects of very hard times is what the President and the Democrats in Congress saw as their vision for the past two years. And it is a vision well on the way to becoming reality.

Unthinking adherence to short-term deficit reduction and lack of understanding about the role of national debt and how to resolve it over time gives the current House majority a tool to destroy that vision. And quite possibly, plunge the nation back into deep economic crisis.

Majority Leader Reid praises Minority leader McConnel ! What else is new? Harry Reid has No cajones if he thinks for a second that Mitch has Americas interest to heart. McConnel does'nt want the GOP haveing to take Tuff votes going into next years election cycle, because he thinks he has a remote chance of being Majority Leader. McConnel has NO legislation attached to his name in his 4 terms as a Senator, but he lotsa BS proposals, such as this latest one. McConnel knows that President Obama has them over the Cliff & this is his(McConnels) way of Avoiding responsibility of Governing.

Sen. Reid will entertain this idea because he's WEAK & does'nt wanna take the Tuff Votes either. Both were just Reelected to 6 year terms, last year, so neither one of them cares other than keeping them both in POWER!

The Carnival Barkers(formerly known as the MSM) will aplaud McConnel, but as of this Morning, have yet to say "How Mcconnel is Avoiding doing his Job of helping Govern America"!

President Obama already has the Power under the 14th Amendment, so he does'nt need a seperate vote from Mitch or Boehner to give him the Power.

President Obama offered them an agreement, they both walked away!

Maybe the Carnival Barkers will come around as the day goes on & put McConnels proposal were it needs to be:

$hitCanned !

You Betcha!

John A. Thank you for laying out the issues in clear prose. I particulary liked your explanation of why the use of the metaphor of ruuning our government is like a household or business is very limiting and misleading. Keep posting...

Thanks for the kind words, MN NICE-2902944.

If you liked that article (even though the collapse cowards have already struck), you may wish to read some of the others I've posted. Just click on my screen name and you will see them.

LoL -- the whole thing sounds familiar.

Reid my lips -- no new taxes.

p.s. Under what possible theory was John A's comment collapsed?

Cowards die many times before their deaths ....

Bill Shakespeare said that.

John A. - nice job in laying out why SOME debt is necessary for our form of government. The analogy of 'running the Government like a business' is ridiculous, and you do a good job of showing that.

Anna Molly---based on some comments on the FT thread this morning, some people seem to think that collapsing a comment is the way to register your disagreement with it. My understanding of the collapse feature is that it is only for Code of Honor violations, not a way to vote against something.

Can one someone explain why only the liberals posts are being collapsed?

I mean, the right wingers have been weaving some conspiracy theory that it is the liberals who have all the control around here... lol

PS: SF - some were practically bragging about it!

How do we reconcile, think about Reid's sincere work when we consider that McConnell said yesterday on the Senate floor that the debt deal is "unattainable" as long as Obama is in office?

McConnell reaffirmed recently that defeating Obama in 2012 is the Republican party's "single most important goal".

(And Feisty... your page is blank...or is this just in my case....I would like to contact if poss.)

(And Feisty... your page is blank...or is this just in my case....I would like to contact if poss.)

It's blank for security reasons... if the trolls want to peek in my window, they're gonna need a taller ladder! lol

Anyway, you can contact me by clicking on contact author (on my page) and send me a e-mail via the vine.

Looking forward to hearing from ya!

John A., great work. I have been saying for some time that government cannot be run like either a business OR a household. You have laid it out beautifully. Thank you.

I also like the way you countered the "government is socialist" rhetoric.

The fact that some chose to collapse you only proves how close to the truth you are.

Bravo, John A.! Keep up the great posts.

Backhouse - I don't understand your confusion over the republicans wanting to defeat Obama. In 2004, the democrats wanted to defeat Bush. They made it job 1. What's so confusing about this? The opposition party wants to defeat the sitting president from his second term everytime an election cycle comes around.

It's blank for security reasons... if the trolls want to peek in my window

_____________________________________________

Betty: Interesting. What is it that you feel the need to hide??

Is this another one of those "special arrangements" you and the members of the (formerly) secret libsrus chat room gang worked out with Mark Murray in St. Louis??

BTW, is there a secret "undisclosed location" for the libsrus chat room gang?? You know, like the one Dick Cheney had.

Can one someone explain why only the liberals posts are being collapsed?

_________________________________________

My theory would be that the libs are collapsing their own posts and refraining from collapsing conservative posts as a disinformation tactic to try to divert attention from the fact that the libsrus chat room gang have special status and perks with MSDNC/Newsvine.

My theory would be that the libs are collapsing their own posts and refraining from collapsing conservative posts as a disinformation tactic to try to divert attention from the fact that the libsrus chat room gang have special status and perks with MSDNC/Newsvine.

Make sure to check under your bed tonight joey - some 'librul' might be hiding under there!

Poor Joey's true colors are showing, he's nothing more than a paranoid, pathetic, excuse of a human being & a peeking tom who gets his jollies by reading private information...

Did I mention how cute you are when your in full 'anxious' mode?

Brian,

Because not about electoral politics. Don't have time to faff around until we have one-party rule or until McConnell gets his birthday wish. Economic recovery is the focus not the poker chip.

Now crunchtime for US to pay its bills. Just as it's done 77 times in our history, and 7 times under Pres Bush without batting an eye.

Based on Murdoch's illegal activity, and Palin and Bachmann supporters hacking Wikipedia, perhaps a far-right wing-nut is hacking FR. Conservatives can only win with machinations, not merit. I hope FR can get on top of this. Otherwise this forum becomes nothing but a right-wing propaganda board and waste of time for everyone else.

If FR won't stop these terrorist, than everyone should start un-collapsing posts and voting for it. I would suggest we start voting against all right-wing posts and trying to collapse them, but I don't want to sink to their level.

Make sure to check under your bed tonight joey - some 'librul' might be hiding under there!

_____________________________________________________

Nah... I have the whole place fumigated for liberals daily. All it takes is one whiff of the sweet smell of financial success and they run out the door or jump out the window screaming with their hair on fire.

reading private information

___________________________________

Your Newsvine comments are all posted on a public blog. Nothing private there, yet you have all yours blanked out. Didn't you call me "paranoid" earlier today??

LMAO!!!!

Backhouse said:

Brian,

Because not about electoral politics. Don't have time to faff around until we have one-party rule or until McConnell gets his birthday wish. Economic recovery is the focus not the poker chip.

Now crunchtime for US to pay its bills. Just as it's done 77 times in our history, and 7 times under Pres Bush without batting an eye.

Uh... what's a faff? Is that a new acrynoym for something?

Crunchtime? Didn't the democrats have 6 years to deal with this? Didn't they have complete rule for 2 of those years? Would we be be in this situation if Obama hadn't demanded $1.2 trillion in stimulus and porkulus? When does Obama take responsibility for the financial obligations of this country? All interesting questions, now that the liberals are blaming the republicans for everything bad under the sun.

I hear ya complaining Backhouse... your complaint is.. the other guys did it so why can't we? Maybe because it was wrong then... and it's wrong now. The spending spree has to stop.

Brian,

My...comment...not...about...electoral...politics.

The...US...should...and...always...has...paid...the....bills...run...up...by....past...presidents.

The more I think about Surrender McTurtle's plan, the more I like it. Obama would be required to submit his ideas for budget cuts and without any Republican support for his ideas, he can suggest partisan cuts. All those farm subsidies you've been collecting Michelle Bachman, let's eliminate them and see how much we save. Hey Joe "you lie" Wilson, how about we cancel all federal contracts in your district and see how much money we save. Same goes for you Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor. Hey big pharma, how about we buy generic drugs for Medicare and Medicaid from Canada? We can also cancel defense contracts located in red states and consolidate our military bases to bases in blue states, closing the ones in red states. This cutting $2.7 trillion could get fun!

Al in Visalia CA - I happen to agree. Let's do all those things. Let's do all those things at Obama's hand. Let him explain to the American public why these things are needed. He can be the bad guy if he's given the go ahead to submit his ideas... this could get REAL interesting. I'd like to see how much support those areas would give him in 2012. I say it's Obama's deal... let him do the dirty work. He's paid a great salary, given a very prestegious home and lifestyle... He should make the hard decisions... and bear the responsibility for them.

Brian, Obama and the Democrats can say the Republicans walked away from the table with $4 trillion in cuts to the deficit being offered. Their loyalty to Grover Norquist is far greater than their sense of responsibility to get our fiscal house in order. This shows a lack of seriousness on the part of the Republicans on this issue, certainly less than the Tea Party advocates who elected them. Maybe it is no coincidence that the last President to actually balance the budget was a Democrat and the last Republican to hold the deficit to less than $50 billion was Gerald Ford.

If this is the only way to prevent a default, go for it. The alternative is not a viable option.

Rick, not to worry. If President Obama, or even Dems like Harry Reid praise McConnell's proposal, the GOP/TP will automatically be against it -- Reverse psychology like we use on kids (who won't eat their peas).

And the president will just outsmart the Republicans again allowing the sun to disinfect the room. Ultimately the Dems will propose spending cuts the Republicans won't like but they can't vote NO like usual without consequences.

Joe wrote: My theory would be that the libs are collapsing their own posts and refraining from collapsing conservative posts as a disinformation tactic to try to divert attention from the fact that the libsrus chat room gang have special status and perks with MSDNC/Newsvine.

Yet another conservative conspiracy theory -- Try reading “The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths” by M. Shermer

John A.-400474

Interesting post, although your bias against Republicans came through loud and clear.

While I personally agree with Keynesian economic theory, when properly applied (to use deficit spending during a recession, and then use the excess revenues from a recovery to repay the deficits), my problem is that the second part of Keynes' theory never gets implemented. Instead of using the excess revenues after a recovery to repay the deficit, those in power use the excess revenues to expand government programs (albeit with good intentions) rather than repay the debt. The result is a debt accumulation that rapidly escalates, which ultimately acts as a drag on the economy, as debt servicing becomes greater and greater, squeezing out more advantageous public 'investments' and lowering everyone's standard of living and increasing unemployment.

We are at one of those 'tipping points' where the debt is rapidly escalating (Obama's own Budget plan calls for a National Debt of over $20 Trillion by the end of 2016 - only 5 years away). If we do not bring it under control very soon, it will spiral out of control, and everyone will suffer far more than if we 'nip it' in the early stages.

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and people that claim one party or the other has 'bad intentions' (Republicans only want to protect the 'rich', Democrats just want to buy voters with more giveaways) do nothing to advance intelligent discussions of the issues. I believe that Republicans are opposed to tax increases because economists say they slow economic growth, not to 'protect the rich', and I believe that Democrats want to protect certain 'safety net' programs to help the less fortunate in society, not because they want to be wasteful.

What I am very disappointed about is the constant 'politicizing' of every issue, which prevents any real progress. I think that we need to change our election process so that the President only serves one 6 year term, because right now, the only thing they think about is getting reelected, not what's best for the country. I don't think it's a coincidence that the most successful parts of Reagan's and Clinton's Presidencies were during their second terms, when they worried more about what was best instead of worrying about another election campaign.

PS - While I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, I do favor letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 10% of income earners - not because it's good economic policy (it will have negative growth aspects), but because it is fair and necessary at this time. I also would favor reforming the tax code to eliminate many of the tax 'loopholes' that the wealthy use to avoid taxes, because they result in the inefficient allocation of resources. These 2 'adjustments' in taxes could make a significant impact on the debt.

It appears that Obama is getting frustrated because the Republicans want him to identify which things he will cut, and Obama never likes to get specific about anything.

JSA1

How come a community organizer out-smarted the GOPers? Obama is simply brilliant. In your world, the liberals brought upon the mess we're in........run with it. For your information, 2012 election has been won and lost. been tough is not been smart. GOPers were tough but stupid. we chose a smart president.

i kind of felt for McConnell yesterday. you could see he's was almost crying. he knew the entire GOP game plan for 2012 is out of the window. they blew it. fine, he came up with a good strategy but still came short. You can rant and hate liberals from now on but Obama and his liberals would rule you again......ding ding. Go drink your tea.....that's if there anything left(y).LMAO

JAS:

Obama did no such thing!

You are making up stuff again!!!!!!

Social Security is not broke. The US owes the SS trust fund billions of dollars which will make it solvent until 2050.

Does it need reform? You betcha!

Broke? That is a damn lie.

Now there. Also too.

Shelia, MD: Social Security is not broke

Unless Obama gets his debt ceiling raised it is. So says Obama. According to Barry, Social Security checks will be the first thing to go.

JAS,

Sometimes the people in the United States have to be shaken up a bit. In the case where President Obama said that he couldn't say for sure that the Social Security checks will go out is needed to wake the sleepy heads up, and get their attention on the Debt Ceiling Raise.

Of course, Social Security has plenty of money. However, as stated, we just need to wake up the sleepy heads up, so that they know the danger of not raising the debt ceiling.

Also, Social Security is paid for program.

Job1: Of course, Social Security has plenty of money

So you're saying the President is a liar?

That's total BS Job1, you don't have the POTUS tell the American people that if something doesn't get done, SS MIGHT not go out August 3rd. That's not waking anybody up, that's being an A@@HOLE and a big time threat towards the American people. If you think that's leadership, you never been in a leadership position. Being a leader is taking responsibility, not being a pr!ck and hold somebody's income that they earn over their heads. Unfreaking believable!!

lol, JoAnna...

They're confused.

If Social Security is solvent, then the checks should go out regardless of whether or not the debt ceiling is raised.

The debt celing issue shouldn't affect Social Security at all...it has plenty of money from its dedicated payroll tax, doesn't it?

Uh-oh...

It does, doesn't it, JoAnna?

MB: They're confused.

The Libs are really on the run. They haven't a clue what to do.

Look at the insane rantings from the Libs today: SS is broke. SS is not broke. Obama is a liar about SS payments. Obama is not a liar about SS payments. Obama knows SS is not broke, but he's telling everyone it is broke.

My gosh, they're all over the place.

MB: Uh-oh...

Libs heads soon to explode.

JoAnna , The president was not lieing, he was speaking to the reality the government faces if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug2. In the interview clip I saw he said that the checks to veterans, government pensions etc are all in jeopardy after Aug 2.

Get real.

Obama used the social security checks issue as a scare tactic, political dirty dealing, nothing more! Those checks were NEVER in danger of not being sent out!

Getting praise from dirty Harry is not something anyone should be proud of! It's kind of like getting thanks from Tony Soprano for doing him a favor. Pretty much anything he does is self-serving!

On the issue of the debt ceiling, we would never been put in this position if Congress had stopped Obama's free wheeling spending the first 2 years of his administration! He's responsible for putting us in this crisis, so he should not get praise for getting that ceiling raised to protect the country's credit! We may have dodged a bullet here, but in reality it is only delaying the inevitable..... we can't keep borrowing to pay increasingly higher interest rates!

So MN, what you're saying is that he NEVER said Social Security? And you want to "Get Real", how about wake up? I don't think people realize what Obama said yesterday. I don't know if people are really that stupid or just well that stupid.

xx

MN Nice: JoAnna , The president was not lieing, he was speaking to the reality the government faces if the debt ceiling is not raised by Aug2.

So you believe SS is insolvent. But how can that be, people paid in, now they want their money back, so how can SS be insolvent? And didn't Obama reduce the employees payroll tax 33% for SS? Maybe that's why it's insolvent now?

Maybe your beef is with job1 who thinks SS is just fine, and the President is just lying about it being insolvent to get peoples attention. Or with Sheila D MD, who also thinks SS is not broke.

You Libs really need to get a common position on this issue. You're really looking foolish.

Paul.

"That's not waking anybody up, that's being an A@@HOLE"

_________________________________________

Did you have the fake outrage when President Bush lied and thousands of people died for no reason?

President Obama is telling the sleepy heads the facts of life.

MN NICE-2902944 -

Sorry the trolls stomped on you. They didn't actually succeed in making anything you wrote invalid, of course. But they enjoy being mean and nasty here. They also HATE us who take the time to post thoughtful, substantive material - notice how quickly they et about collapsing most of the moderate and liberal posters.

By the way, any time JAS1 gives a citation, be sure and check it. Invariably, the citation either has nothing whatsoever to do with her point, or it contradicts her point. She has the credibility of a cockroach.

Everytime we raise the debt limit we print more money! How much money can we keep printing in a fiat currency situation before the World gets wise! The strength of our dollar comes from our faith and the Worlds faith in our Country, that's it.... our dollar is not backed by gold as it was 50 years ago, it is backed by the confidence we and the rest of the world has in the USA!

Already we've seen this 'faith' take a hit, earlier this year Russia and China agreed NOT to buy/sell oil in American $s anymore. They will use a blend of their currencies from now on. That will affect the strength of the dollar, especially if more and more countries decide to do the same thing. Raising the debt ceiling is nothing to be proud of, it's an act of desperation!

job1: another victory for the President

What did he win? 9.2% unemployment? $4 trillion in deficit spending in 2.5 years? A war in Libya? $4/gal gas?

News:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Wednesday that a new stimulus program is in the works that will entail additional asset purchases, the clearest indication yet that the central bank is contemplating another round of monetary easing.

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43739458

Other news:

The dollar fell against most major currencies on Wednesday after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the central bank could resort to more monetary stimulus if a sluggish U.S. economy weakens further.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/13/us-markets-forex-idUSTRE74U02L20110713

As the dollar is further devalued, look for oil and food prices to continue to increase. Say hello to $5/gal gas.

ObamaNomics!

Joanna. She of NO credibility.

Troll. Makes stuff up.

If someone borrows money from you and gives you a note or an IOU, that note or IOU counts as one of your assets, but is only as good as the person who gave you the note or the IOU.

If Social Security isn't technically solvent, it's because Social Security's solvency is only as good as the word of Congress, which replaced with money it took from the SS surplus with Treasury notes or bonds or whatever. As long as Congress keeps its promises, then Social Security remains solvent, well out into the future.

The only question, then, is whether Congress will keep its promises, or whether it will, as Republicans propose to do, cover up for its theft by taking away the benefits promised to the people who paid in the money.

If it doesn't keep its promises, then Congress is the liar in this scenario. And anyone who supports Congress in not keeping its promises is complicit in the lie.

AM: The only question, then, is whether Congress will keep its promises, or whether it will, as Republicans propose to do, cover up for its theft by taking away the benefits promised to the people who paid in the money.

The President says Social Security is insolvent if the debt ceiling is not raised. If Obama is telling the truth, that means the goverment does not have the money to cover the Social Security payments unless they can continue to have massive deficit spending. Sure sounds like SS is in fact broke, because of all the other programs and departments in the federal government, SS was the first one thrown over the side by Obama.

With Obama's statement to CBS news last night, he's now in the camp that SS is in fact insolvent. If you believe the President, then you now know that that the GOP wanting to reform SS and Medicare because of this insolvency are in fact noble efforts. If you don't believe SS to be insolvent, the President is in fact a liar.

Your choice Libs.

Really Job1?

"Did you have the fake outrage when President Bush lied and thousands of people died for no reason?"

Sorry Job1 one that statement is BS. It's not about Bush and you need to get that out of your head if you can. When Obama screws up, you want to refer to "Bush", it's old and lame.

By the way Job1, I served 20 years under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. I did a job and did it well. I lost too many friends in both Iraq and Afghanistan for your lack of understanding what we went thru. So again, it's about leadership which Obama does not have or he would had NEVER threaten SS. He's weak and a bully.

JoAnna, the President did NOT say Social Security was insolvent. That is you making things up.

The President DID say that if the government went into default, he could not guarantee that Social Security checks, or military checks or many government checks would go out on time. He was stating the reality of the situation. Of course, you give him credit for nothing so you choose to see it as something completely different.

John A. liaid everything out superbly above in this thread. But it does not conform to your way of thinking so you will not read it.

To acknowledge the truth, fielden, would be to acknowledge that Congress has stolen what would be a $2.2 trillion Social Security SURPLUS and replaced it with worthless promises.

Simply put, fielden, Congress would have to admit that Al Gore was right, after all. The money won't be there to write those checks because they forgot to put the lock on the lock box and then helped themselves to it.

But admitting that doesn't suit the Republicans' interests because it would mean they would be morally obligated not to make Social Security recipients suffer, and equally morally obligated to find that money elsewhere, either through other cuts or by raising revenue.

God forbid we should stop subsidizing Halliburton, Exxon, and private corporate jets, or raise taxes on the wealthy, when it's so much easier to steal from the elderly.

Poor Joanna and the other mentally challenged one who don't understand anything.

Again, SS is not broke. The US owes the trust fund billions. The US cannot pay them if the debt celing isn't raised.

If we don't raise the debt ceiling we can't pay all of our bills, SSA being just one. That's what that

"full faith and credit" thingy is all about.

Got that Joanna.

Exactly, Anna Molly! Well put. Thank you.

So Anna, why did Obama use SS as a threat? I honestly don't know if there's funds there or not. When Obama used the buzz word, SS and follow that up with a threat, it raises flags. The sad part is that it doesn't bother you that Obama said it. Amazing.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

Anyone what to spin Obama's words? So which is it, is SS broke or is he wrong?

Paul,

His answer to the question he was asked was there are 7 million checks that needed to go out and without the debt limit question resolved there was no guarantee that any of those checks would go out. It would be determined at the appropriate time what could be paid and what couldn't. The questioner put SS first, not President Obama. Try posting the complete answer, unless of course it contradicts the "point" you're trying to make.

vw,

I think you meant 70 million, good spin though. I wasn't contradicting anything. Did you even read the article?

"Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

Hell, not once did he mention it, but twice in the article. Hey, I understand you think he can't do wrong or too deaf to understand what he said. Point is, he should had never said Social Security, but maybe he can get a "do over" like everything else he says be mistake.

By the way, do people still get checks? I know my VA is direct deposit, so if SS is direct deposit then it goes back to that SS must be broke, right? Like I've said before I don't know if there's money in SS or not, my point is that he used it as a threat which goes back to the spin.

Anna Molly said:

The only question, then, is whether Congress will keep its promises, or whether it will, as Republicans propose to do, cover up for its theft by taking away the benefits promised to the people who paid in the money.

If it doesn't keep its promises, then Congress is the liar in this scenario. And anyone who supports Congress in not keeping its promises is complicit in the lie.

A couple of questions for you Anna...

Congress... as you so aptly put, may not meet it's obligations if the money isn't there. How come you are insunating that it's only republicans in congress? It was my belief that congress were made up of both partys. The way I read your comments above... you only blame republicans. If this is true, are the democrats completely pure as the wind driven snow? They never had a hand in it? I'm just curious about the intent of your statement.

The second observation involves the same thing... do you propose to get rid of congress as a whole, or is your intent to state that only the republicans must go? I'm just curious as to the direction of your angst.

Hell Brian, they want a ONE party system it seems like, hmmmmmmm what kind of government is that called? Anyone want to help me out?

"May not go out" is not the same thing as "broke". If the government is shut down, then it's shut down. JS1 - you're a real - I wish I could think of a name I could print.

Paul,

It's called context. Note that the President expanded the area of concern to all checks expected to be sent, regardless of format. I don't think the concern here is the postage costs. Good call though on that missing 0.

SCOTT PELLEY: "Can you tell the folks at home that the Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd. There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default."

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "Well this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks; these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

PELLEY: "Can you guarantee as President those checks will go out on August the 3rd?"

OBAMA: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd, if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."

The President pointed out that the government has a large and varied array of responsibilities to meet and not just SS. All of these will be effected.

Brianb:

Congress... as you so aptly put, may not meet it's obligations if the money isn't there. How come you are insunating that it's only republicans in congress? It was my belief that congress were made up of both partys. The way I read your comments above... you only blame republicans. If this is true, are the democrats completely pure as the wind driven snow? They never had a hand in it? I'm just curious about the intent of your statement.

Oh, pish. You know jolly well what it means. Republicans are the ones who want to stick the old, the poor, and the disabled with the bill for their theft. I believe I heard Nancy Pelosi say the other day that it's off the table. Therefore, I don't blame democrats for that. I blame both sides for creating the problem, but I blame Republicans for insisting on solving it by punishing the very people they stole from. Since you asked, I also blame President Obama and any democrat in Congress to the extent he or she buys into that, possibly so that he or she also doesn't have to face up to his or her part in creating the problem.

Paul-Florida:

So Anna, why did Obama use SS as a threat? I honestly don't know if there's funds there or not. When Obama used the buzz word, SS and follow that up with a threat, it raises flags. The sad part is that it doesn't bother you that Obama said it. Amazing.

I don't know if the funds are there or not, any more than you do. But sufficient funds may very well not be there because the surplus has been robbed by Congress and various Presidents to pay for the wars and other things. Makes you all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

Don't like it? Shoulda voted for Al Gore.

But why should President Obama's threat bother me any more than George Bush's mushroom cloud threat?

FR -- PLEASE move the tab for "older" articles farther away from the margins. You don't even have to click on it, and it takes you to the older article. Really annoying!

Holy cow, this is like the Republicans currently re-debating the light bulb, which was decided years ago. President Obama said “There are about 70 million checks that go out" including military, disability, etc. It was a CBS line of questioning and CBS drilling down to Social Security. So what!?

The point is President Obama offered a 4 trillion Big Deal, finding 3 trillion in cuts (very painful including savings from trust funds) IF the GOP/TP would agree to 1 trillion in revenue – revenue starting by closing loopholes (tax evasion) and ending subsidies (taxpayer spending). But Boehner could not get the House on board, so McConnell had to offer “Plan B.”

Understand this, understand this is because Republicans have taken unconstitutional oaths to lobbyists, and the treasonous Tea Party (though a fringe minority) has imposed a purity test so extreme as to cause our country to default. Yes, the GOP/TP supporters actually want to default, to ruin our nation’s credit, to destroy the GDP in only one month’s time, to damage people’s retirement funds, to plummet back into a deep recession – This is what they want. Look at this poll, look at it! http://www.gallup.com/poll/146969/americans-favor-budget-compromise-shutdown.aspx

As long as Republicans in congress continue to tout Paul Ryan’s plan as their budget proposal and platform, a plan that requires the debt ceiling to be raised, a plan that would add 6 trillion in debt, a plan that would privatize Medicare, the GOP/TP will NOT prevail. As long as Republican governors run fake Democrats in an unnecessary primary at the tax payer’s expense in Wisconsin (Scott Walker & Co.), or write fake letters to editors in Florida (Rick Scott, AKA Lord Voldermort), or cook the books to balance the budget in Minnesota (Pawlenty) or Texas (Perry), they will NOT prevail.

We are watching the elections in New York, California, and Wisconsin. We are watching the Murdoch Empire’s illegal activities and lack of journalistic standards with each passing day. We are watching GOP/TP presidential candidates exposed, and supporters scrambling to re-write Wikipedia. What we are watching is a meltdown—of the Republican Party.

JoAnnaSmith1 "Obama has certainly pulled the lid off what a mess Social Security is. All this talk of it being solvent for the next 10, 20, 30 years has been proven to be a lie. Obama showed the country that Social Security is indeed broke."

There are two aspects of the Social Security program that are poorly understood;

1 - The program is 'technically' sound for the next 30 years or so, because they have about $2.5 Trillion in 'reserves' to fund payments to retirees.

2 - Those 'reserves' were taxed and collected from workers over the last 50+ years, but the government 'took' them and spent them, so there is no 'real' money to draw upon - just government IOUs. This means that the government will have to collect that $2.5 Trillion (plus interest) AGAIN in the form of higher taxes. This was an unconsionable breach of the public trust started under Lyndon Johnson to fund his 'Great Society' programs, but those politicians that did it are long since dead, and there is not much that can be done at this time, except 'pay the piper again'.

There is a much greater problem with the Medicare Program, because it was NEVER set up to be self-sustaining, and the deficits in the program are seriously 'out of whack'. For example;

Here are Obama's projections for the Social Security and Medicare programs for the 10 years from 2012 - 2021;

Social Security Revenues (taxes) = $8.937 Trillion.

Social Security Expenditures = $9.921 Trillion.

Social Security Deficit = $984 Billion.

Medicare Revenues (taxes) = $2.730 Trillion.

Medicare Expenditures = $6.621 Trillion.

Medicare Deficit = $3.891 Trillion.

Obviously, the Medicare program is the biggest problem, and something drastic needs to be done. The total 10 year Deficit for both of these programs is a staggering $4.875 Trillion, which must be covered by spending cuts and/or tax increases. Nancy Pelosi's statement that these programs are 'untouchable' is just not realistic.

Source - The White House site to verify these numbers is as follows - see Table S-3;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf

The Liberals are confused by McConnell's plan.

Navy Disabled: I still do not understand then why the GOP/TP just did not accpet his proposal and claim a piece of the credit for moving this couintry forward.

Because it's hard to work with a human being as despicable as Obama. A man that threatens seniors and the disabled with the withholding of their Social Security checks because the GOP won't let him deficit spend like he wants to. Obama is a child, someone not the least bit serious about the debt of the country, and the fact that our children and their children will be paying for this losers massive spending.

human being as despicable

I tend to scroll on by the large mouth a@@es comments, however, her calling ANYONE despicable is some really FUNNY stuff!

If only she was able to see her own reflection in the mirror - she would know exactly what despicable looks like!

x

".........a human being as despicable as Obama..."

Damn, woman- you must have REALLY hated Nixon and Bush Jr!

But keep whining and bitchen- he's the man come 2012. Suck it up now, and go find something else to do the rest of the day, will you? (and take No Jo with you).

No matter what we feel about either party, we need to understand in a democracy to work correctly both sides need to work things out. I cannot understand some people who are so blinded by their prejudice that they cannot see anything good in some or anything bad in others. GET REAL.

No DBO don't send no joe and JAS1 away, their the ones that keep this blog interesting with their lies and phony made up stories. They depict just how stupid the teabaggers can be. Typical teabagger, accuse everyone else of doing what they themselves are doing, aka all over the place with their posts and not making any sense at all. Keep it up girls your comedy is uplifting.

Evidently in JAS1's world it's better to have the president lie to the American public and tell them what they want to hear rather than tell them what they need to know. What he said was a clear and honest response to the question of what could happen if the debt question is not resolved in time.

And this comes from Fiesty? The ONE person on here who can't go a day without insulting someone...

Like I've said before, it's truly amazing how the monitors on this board let you insult people day in and day out... You add no value to any conversation, and your greatest talent (that I can see...) is your ability to manage "cut and paste".

Put them on ignore that is what I finally had to do..........the so called monitors on this page only scold the other side of the story....I come here and laugh and go to Real Clear Politics...there are 2 sides to every debate ..the difference here is you are ridiculed, called names....pick one they will say it and they get away with it..........

Reid's spinning, JS1. He realizes that McConnell just pulled the rug out from under Obama, who does not realize yet that he is falling face down into a pit.

Obama does not even understand public sentiment on this

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0711/reality_check_cfd8ee6e-e9bb-4767-8efe-292febe42e81.html

Add to that his expressed determination to "get this done" so he can propose another "stimulous" spending- err, investment- package, and the democrats realize that they are toast.

Obama just raised three million LESS than Bush in 2003 for the same quarter. The press is spinning magic numbers- the math does not add up- but Reid?

He seems to get it.

They're toast.

Reid is petrified that a deal to raise the debt ceiling won't get done.

He believes the McConnell proposal is a way out.

It is...but, only temporarily.

If Democrats accept McConnell's proposal, they will own every increase in the debt ceiling between now and the 2012 presidential election.

Have you seen how increases in the debt ceiling poll, JoAnna?

Solid majorities of the American public consistently oppose raising the debt ceiling, and McConnell knows it.

Reid's response?

Pure desperation.

Actually, the rug is being pulled out on the Republicans. President Obama is smarter than these Republicans and hey don't know what hit them. Remember, President Obama is the good guy, and goods guys win.

So last week someone mentioned about a snare being set and the Republicans walking right into it. Looks like the tables have turned if Reid buys into this.

This puts everything on the President, if they agree, he owns the debt limit increase and everything else that goes along with it. Personally, I don't believe he is that dumb.

Either way, brilliant play on McConnell's part. 70% of Americans don't think the debt limit should be raised.

The left talks about the uninformed electorate, but there is something they truly understand and that is maxing out their credit cards. When that happens to them, they can't call Visa and ask them to arbitrarily give them another $10,000 to spend. They have to make changes in their spending habits and now they think the government should do the same.

MB: Have you seen how increases in the debt ceiling poll, JoAnna?

Not so good.

MB: If Democrats accept McConnell's proposal, they will own every increase in the debt ceiling between now and the 2012 presidential election

McConnell took Obama's hostage taking threat to withhold Social Security off the table. Mitch and the GOP knew Obama would be stupid enough to try withhold the SS checks, and they had their plan in place to counter it. Now Obama has exposed SS as being a bankrupt entitlement program only supported through massive deficit spending. McConnell also exposed Obama for the political hack everyone knew he is.

BTW JAS1, nice calling out these guys on the "Hail Mary ...Punt"! What the hell is that?

What a bunch of doofusses.

"Hail Mary punt" - Geeze . . . .

I believe they are called "on-side kicks'....

White Collar Auto: " 70% of Americans don't think the debt limit should be raised."

Do you have a source for those numbers? Because the first thing that came up when I tried to Google it was a Gallup poll - from back in May - and the only 70% I see is 70% of Republicans being against it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147524/Americans-Oppose-Raising-Debt-Ceiling.aspx

For ALL Americans, it was only 47%. And perhaps more tellingly, a whopping 34% said they didn't know enough about the issue to say one way or the other. As someone who's worked in market research for 42 years and done some political polling along the way, I can tell you that that 34% figure is probably an underestimate, even now - people just don't like to admit to pollsters that they don't have a clue about important issues. And I venture to say that if you asked the open-ended question about "Why do you say that?" that seems to be missing from almost every political poll (because categorizing the answers into neat little piles is totally subjective) the number of people able to respond coherently would drop even more. Most Americans are not political junkies and couldn't explain the debt ceiling if their lives depended on it. In any case, your "70%" was way off base.

JoAnnne,

WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:23am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes raising the country's debt limit even though failure to do so could hurt America's international standing and push up borrowing costs, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.

Some 71 percent of those surveyed oppose increasing the borrowing authority, the focus of a brewing political battle over federal spending. Only 18 percent support an increase

WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:23am EST

Did you really just post a 7 month old poll as a source? LMAO

Try to find something a bit more current and get back to us will ya?

"Either way, brilliant play on McConnell's part. 70% of Americans don't think the debt limit should be raised."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For now the President is waking these sleepy heads up. Also, 70% of Americans want taxes raised on the Rich.

Feisty -

Would this one - from this week - be current enough for you?

http://people-press.org/2011/07/11/public-now-divided-on-debt-limit-debate/

In addition to showing that people are tending to now be more concerned with the effects of NOT raising the debt ceiling than they were even in May, it includes this little nugget:

"The new survey finds that many Americans continue to say they do not have a good understanding of what would happen if the government does not raise the debt limit. A narrow majority (55%) say they understand the consequences very (18%) or fairly well (37%)."

So to confirm what I was guessing at above, only 18% of Americans even claim to understand the whole issue "very well" - regardless of whether they support or oppose it. So I think we need to take all of these polls with a ton of salt.

Interestingly, I can't seem to find the actual tables or pie charts anywhere from the poll WCA mentions; just the Reuters article itself. And even that seems to mainly be quoted on conservative web sites like Ron Paul's and Alex Jones. Oh, well..... poll dancing is always fun, but I need to get back to the poll I'm actually being paid to work on today - hey, all you corn and soybean growers out there, do you prefer to plant standard rows, twin rows, or narrow rows? (And we DO want to know why you chose whichever you did! :) )

Would this one - from this week - be current enough for you?

Much better! Thank you JoAnne! ;o)

I prefer my corn with lots of butter, does that count? lol

Gee, you are right, I thought the date was July 12. So let's use Gallup poll from yesterday.

42% say no, 22% say yes and 35% say they don't know enough.

So 2-1 the American public is against raising the Debt limit. What do you think would happen if the 35% that don't understand knew enough? Tell the Government to spend money it doesn't have?

This is a loser for whoever gets stuck with it, is the point. That is why the Left have been screaming that it is the Republicans fault for the past two weeks. McConnell just put all the blame on the President.

I think a hail Mary punt is when you have downs left but you are out of plays and so scared to carry the ball you punt.

Republican way, just collapse those voices we do not want to hear on this thread.

Republicans believe in freedom of speech, unless it is your speech.

Way to prove how truly little you care for the American way.

White Collar-

Excuse me, but "most" Americans don't have a clue about the Debt Limit. That would include you.

If you had a clue you would not be talking nonsense about it should not be raised.

Take your TAX break that you got from President Obama and go buy a clue. Please.

Gee, you are right, I thought the date was July 12

Sure you did! *wink wink*

Remember, you've been spreading this LIE for over a week now...

Forrest, I believe that is called a "Quick Kick", Hail Mary's, in Football, are always long passes with time running out. Think Doug Flutie or the the one that killed me, Kordell Stewart to Michael Westbrook Colorado v. Michigan in 1994.

Feisty, unlike your groupies, your affirmation is not something I desire. I owned the mistake, posted another poll and re-iterated my point. You have no comment on that, just like everything else, you choose to attack.

How about a comment on the substance of the post rather than the gloating over my error in the prior post.

I won't hold my breath.

Edward-1075991

"Personally, I would have been happier to let the country default to see how far the anoited one would be willing to go to drive us off the cliff"

Brilliant.

Some people wish for world peace others for things to get better, and you want to be driven off a cliff. WOW.

Edward you do realize everything you posted above is teabagger talking points from 2 years ago. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Get some new material Edward, your posts are stale.

Hey Ed if you really want to drive off a cliff I have an old station wagon I can give you that way you can take McConnell, Boehner, Cantor and about 5 five more suicidal republicans with you.

The Republicans have no plans except to hurt the working class and serve their corporate masters. Now, the Tea Party doesn't know what's going on because they live in Lala land.

rick savannah: While you may have a point about the SS payments, I have to say your paranoid rant regarding the Liberal motivation for Social Security and other progressive programs is enough to make that point suspect.

Fair enough.

How do you feel about the President threatening to withhold entitlement payments if he doesn't get his way with the debt ceiling negotiations? Do you think one man should have the power to do so? And by their nature, entitlements are already paid for by the beneficiaries - is it fair for the President to put those payments in jeopardy as a negotiating ploy?

I look forward to your discussion on these issues.

I didn't see it as a threat. Simply a statement that the possibility was there that the checks may not be able to be paid out.

Again, it is the motivation you are applying to his statements that I question. He is not the one putting the payments in jeopardy. If anyone is, it is McConnell (previously, until his latest proposal, which needs to be looked at and considered closer) and Boehner for refusing to negotiate in good faith.

ris: I didn't see it as a threat. Simply a statement that the possibility was there that the checks may not be able to be paid out.

Would you agree though rick that the President making that statement that SS "possibly" won't go out is a clear indication that SS is in fact bankrupt without the ability to deficit spend.? Also, you can see where some, especially people dependent on those checks, can interpret the Presidents actions as a threat.

Others here, on this very article, say that SS is not broke, and it can't be broke. So rick, is SS bankrupt, or not? The President is in very stark terms implying that it is. If it isn't, did you believe the President to be liar and only using SS as pawn in his quest to get his way with the debt ceiling talks?

Rick,

First of all it was a threat. If that had come out the mouth of a Republican you would all be screaming "Scare Tactics"

How you can put this on Boehner and McConnell is astonishing. 800+ days and the Democrats have not submitted a budget for the Federal Government. Do you have a budget in your home? Do you understand how much money comes into your home each month and how much you have to spend? Do you routinely spend more money than what you take in?

That is exactly what Congress has been doing and yes it goes back to the Bush years too. That does not make it right to continue blindly down this misguided path.

It's time to cut the damn programs and Departments that are not essential to the welfare of this country. How about we start with this- Every time they threaten a Government shutdown, they talk about laying off the "Non-essential" departments. What say we just shut them all down permanently since they are deemed "Non-essential" in the first place?

Hey Rick, what are the President's proposals? What are the cuts that add up to $4T? And why is the SS trust fund that is solvent until 2035 unable to honor the current needs of SS recipients?

To put this in context we are borrowing $125B every month. That's $400 for every person in the country. Image that for every month this year you have spent $400 more than you earn.

cloward piven google it you will find ur answer

Don't you think once the Republicans who voted for the wars and all the debt increases to pay for them should man up and realize it is still their responsibility to pay the bills.

Its like dad running up the credit card and then claiming it was all the wifes fault. Now it is her responsibility to figure out how to pay for all the back debt and feed the children. If she needs more money to pay for his credit card that is her fault too.

Sounds like the Republican plan to me.

exactly why you teagaggers have no credability, Obama never made a threat about social security at anytime no matter how much you fools wanna so hard to believe that....Thats all you got ????More of your made up B.S. just like the socialism thing , the death pannel thing and such ??? It shows that you and what you stand for are in a world of hurt.......He told you the facts of what "could" happen if a deal wasnt reached and that was it.....speaks volumes when you nutcases have to try to put your own spin on what someone actually says.........

It's all about the money...

When Democrats say "I may not be able to afford..." they think, I cannot afford.

When Republicans say "I may not be able to afford..." they think insolvency, collapse and ruin.

I do. It's more fun that getting high on pot or some other 'drug'. So much fun, so little cost.

True, drive-by, but what a headache afterwards!

Fancy that,

Social Security is solvent for another twenty years.

Can you explain how something could be solvent, but not able to pay its bills?
Is that the same as saying: "I have all the money I owe you, but I can't pay it to you because I don't have it."?

Remember Gores lock box you Republicans made so much fun of. Well you did not believe him and the social security money got robbed.

I have all the money, I owe you, but Bush borrowed large amounts to hide the cost of his wars.

Then he was after current social security to put in the stock market before it crashed. Then social security could have been robbed just like your 401K's.

If all the Republicans on this thread aren't rich then you are all here just cutting your nose off to spite your face.

If you really cared about the debt ceiling, you would be on this board screaming for the end of wars now and not trying to figure out how to take more from the poor to balance the budget.

So, Americans First,

What you are saying is that SS does not have the money to pay its obligations?

I do see all your other rantings, I just want you to clarify this single point for me: In your opinion, does SS have the money it needs to send out checks regardless of what happens to our debt and/or debt ceiling?

If you really want to talk about blaming someone for the problem, first admit that there is a problem.

Americans First:

It's Medicare and Medicaid that need real fixing with spending cuts and tax increases on corporations and the wealthy.

I find it interesting that you state that corporations and the wealthy should be responsible for funding Medicare and Medicaid. Do you really believe that Corporations and Wealthy people use these services at all?

The corporations and wealthy use America and should pay the same effective tax rates as other Americans. I have never used a fighter jet or aircraft carrier but I pay for them.

JC in G, are you telling us that no one in any corporation and no one who is wealthy ever gets sick? Or has cancer? Or breaks their arm? Or retires?

Wow! This is breaking news! Do tell us more...

fielden:

You do understand the difference between taxing someone that works for a corporation and taxing the corpoartion don't you? If you don't I guess I will have to tell you a lot more! As far as the rich are concerned, they will buy their medical care regardless of the coverage they recieve from Medicare. I'm pretty sure most rich people don't qualify for Medicaid.

Gump:

I agree with your first sentance completely. We all should pay the same tax rate regardless of our income. The second sentence is open to interpretation: The people that are flying the fighter jets and sailing around on aircraft carriers are supposed to be keeping you safe. They are also supposed to be keeping Avis rent a car safe too, so Avis should pay taxes to support their efforts. GE should pay taxes to support their efforts. Low income earners should pay to support their efforts. Now you can suggest that the military does not actually do anything for you or any of these groups and I will be glad to have that discussion if your only point is that the military is useless and we should not be giving them a dime.

No my point is we don't all use things directly but we pay for them collectively, you made it sound to me that if we don't use it personally we should not have to contribute.

That was not my point. Fancy That made the point that we could correct all our problems by fixing Medicare and Medicaid by taxing corporations and the rich more. I find it ironic that neither of these groups use these services, but the "Cure" to our economy is to have them pay for it. I understand that those of us that pay taxes, pay for things that we don't need or use. Hopefully we also pay for things that we do need or use. I didn't get to ride in the helicoptor that delivered the Seals to OBL's hideout, but I don't mind paying for some of the gas to get them there because I think my life is safer for having spent the money on gas to go kill that SOB.

I did make a mistake earlier when I attributed Fancy That's comment to American's First.

I believe the start of this conversation was if SS had money or not. Any ideas on that question?

jc in

First, I really have no direct knowledge how social security checks are paid and what department they come from.

Second, I think there would have been money had not Bush stole the money from social security to pay for his wars. Now there is only IOU's from a country ready to default on their loans.

Because the republithugs are the part of "NO" ....no responsibility for anything! Maybe that's why they are called the G "NO" P!

Did you happen to forget about Nancy Polosi? I believe she and her gang are the ones that voted for and approved all of the debt that Obama has wrung up. Did I miss something and HCR2 was passed by the Republican controlled house? Did the Republican controlled house just pass the 14th stimulus bill? The debt increase from 2008 belongs to Obama and his pals Polosi and Reed.

I guess I would rather be a part of the "Party of No" than a part of the "You are getting sleepy. Taxes are good for you. You are getting sleepy. Send all your money to me. You are getting sleepy. Give me everything you have ever worked for. You are getting sleepy." party.

Mass chemist said:

If I remember my high school civics, Obama cannot collect taxes nor spend money that is not authorized by the legislature. And all spending bills must originate in the Republican House.

So, why is the deficit Obama's fault?

Well if it's not Obama's fault for the deficit then it can't be "duyba's" either... oh wait... but it's Bush's fault... blah blah blah

You just blew up one of the Libs favorite talking points!!

BOOM Roasted!!

STOP Spending and we would not be talking about this ... we could be talking about the NFL lockout or something really important like that!!

MC: So, why is the deficit Obama's fault?

To the Libs, Obama is not responsible for anything, and is at fault for nothing. He's just a tender lamb wandering around the country professing "peace", and "balanced approaches", and "getting along", and "SS is going under and its the GOPs fault". He's just a naive Washington outsider who can't understand why people disagree with him.

Poor Barack, so misunderstood.

And underestimated or is that "misestimated" as GW used to say, really, you can look it up on the "internets"

The Internet that Al Gore invented? Really, you can look it up...

bingo

Ira:

Threatening to through the entire U.S. economy into default because you refuse to pass a routine debt ceiling adjustment if you don't get what you want is a scare tactic.

Saying that you can't guarantee what gets paid and what doesn't if the U.S. no longer has a credit card to use is a fact.

I am afraid you are correct Nashville

What else is on your mind?

I say two years and no new legislation beyond that. That way only those who are interested in serving the country will apply.

Mav-

You are so right!

I did watch O'Donnell last night and Monday night when he predicted that McConnell and/or Boehner would propose Plan B. It is kinda scary how he can predict with such accuracy what is going to happen next. But he did work on the Hill for many years and knows exactly how the games are played.