No vote on the Boehner Bill – It appears that his leadership (rep. Boehner) not President Obama’s should be the one called into question. Watching Peggy Noodles this morning call President Obama a loser – well I guess it takes one to know one. Her relevance and expiration date has expired along with Joe S. and Pat Buchanan.

Earlier yesterday, Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) was projecting confidence that his debt plan would pass at a vote scheduled at 6:00pm on Thursday. I read that he was even spotted singing “It’s a zippity-doo-dah day” as he trudged through the “hollow” halls of Congress.

However as we now know this morning, Rep. Boehner could not round up enough members of his caucus for the 6:00pm vote, and it was cancelled to today, tomorrow, next week, next month – how knows. This is like replaying the same Super Bowl game over and over until your team wins.

We currently are running a National Debt of 14+ Trillion Dollars and growing. As I have written previously and attached the appropaite documents (link’s) about 50% of this can be traced back to the failed Adminstration of President Bush. http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-10-11bud.pdf: Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook. Out of our current deficit of 1.4 Trillion 40-50% of that is left over from the Bush Administration as well. Yes, President Obama did continue the “Bush Tax Cuts” and if you remember he had to in order to get other legislation that moved this country forward passed. The “AINO” group kept holding bill after bill hostage (like they are doing right now – again) unless the Bush Tax Cuts were extended. Personality I felt he should have left them all expire along with the tax loopholes and tax incentives to Big business and Oil and the 15% effective rate of the Hedge Fund Managers. I have no problem paying a few dollars more in taxes if and I really mean “IF” the money is used to move out of this mess we are in and NOT another boondoggle.

This whole “Debt Ceiling Crisis” was totally manufactured by the right not to do anything about the Debt but to use the Debt Issue as a way to try and “GUT” the American Government. Since JFK the debt ceiling has been increased 74 times. He!! Regan increased it 18 times, Bush 6 or 7 times, our President another 2 or 3 times. So why the big deal now – because this is what happens when you have politicians that sign Bullsh!t oaths to people like Norquist and others and then put that “oath” above the oath they swore to when they were sworn into office. This is what happens when we allow undisclosed and unlimited money (Foreign and Domestic) to be used to buy elections as was passed by the “Citizens United” decision and later ratified by the radical right when they blocked the “Disclosure Bill”.

The bottom line is that this Debt Ceiling Crisis was made up by the Right for the simple purpose to use it as a way to totally destroy Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and 50+ programs that benefit Americans like Medical Research, FEMA, FAA, Education, Law Enforcemnet, Food and Product Safety, NOA, government regulations on Big Oil and Wall Street, etc. This is their agenda NOT fixing the Debt/Deficit problem. Not by a long shot. Anybody hear anything during this whole mess about creating jobs? This would go a very long way to solving a lot of our problems and the AINOS promised us this would be their top priority when elected in 2010. And the lies continue from the right.

Looks like Wall Street will start out down today by about 60 points or better (thanks Dennis).

John Boehner just might survive:

The headlines seem to say it all: Tea Party says Boehner is too liberal; Republican Party in disarray; Huge setback for Boehner; McCain says Boehner's leadership is at stake; Boehner is toast. The pundits seem to be on the same page at least for now.

But let's look a little deeper. No one in the GOPTP wants Boehner's job at least right now. Republicans are will to let Boehner twist in the wind at least for another week, until the debt ceiling crisis passes. But then what will happen?

There very well may be a challenge to Boehner's seat as Speaker of the House. Cantor is next in line, but I question if he has the votes to unseat Boehner. Certainly he has the support of the freshmen Tea Party Representatives, but I don't think that is a majority. Will Boehner supporters go with Cantor" Maybe, maybe not. Indeed the House Republicans are in disarray.

Personally I'm hoping Boehner keeps his seat. He is more reasonable than Cantor and I just cannot imagine Eric Cantor being third in the line of succession to be President. Now that is a real scary thought.

So the Tea Partiers still aren't completely on board with the Boehner plan. What's up with that? Don't these folks know John is a good man and deserves their vote? Don't these folks know that even though the sky won't fall, there will be some negative economic consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised? Don't they know the whole world thinks our political system has turned into a never ending dysfunctional food fight? Sure they know, they know all that more. So what's their problem?

Their problem is Obama's vision of Amerika. A vision for transforming the country into a European style social democracy where spending huge amounts of money is the policy tool of choice for preserving – and expanding – the welfare state. A vision that has seen deficit spending skyrocketing on Obama's watch through interventionist government policies such as the fiscal stimulus and auto company bailouts. A vision that has thrown cold water on the economic recovery through activist government policies such as health care reform and financial regulation. And a vision that incomprehensibly includes the power to tell private sector companies where they can and cannot manufacture their products.

That's their problem, the debt ceiling issue is just the vehicle for expressing abject contempt and fervent opposition to this vision. And they have the power to do something about it. They have the power right NOW to stop government spending in its tracks and thereby send an unambiguous message to the country and the world: this far and no further, not one inch more not one dollar more.

Boehner's leadership style is to let the House express its own will rather than badgering members into support. I admire him enormously for taking that decidedly non-Washington approach which is in such sharp contrast to how Nancy and the Dems bought the votes to ram through HCR last year. The downside of his approach is that a committed group of members can throw a monkey wrench into the process and thereby create the appearance of dysfunction.

But dysfunction it's not, it's a strong stand against Obama's Amerika. From that perspective the stakes are huge and the current battle is well worth fighting. And if these people want to stand firm by their principles, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may.

Feisty:

Funny how the AINOS have a set of morals for just them and a separate set for everybody else like Bachmann and Walsh and a bevy of others seem to promote daily.

Slim bags all of them and hypocrites to boot.

I have a brand new word for the Republicans to learn. It easy to spell and it has a wonderful meaning. When people can't see eye to eye, it bridges the gap and many GREAT things can and will happen.

This word means the following:

"A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions"

This word is easy to say and to carry out.

Compromise - Com-pro-mise

What's the matter, "Joe in Albany"? Have you nothing glowing to say about the leadership exhibited by Speaker Boehner yesterday?

What We Believe In As Americans Is Important

What was it that Lawrence O'Donnell said last night?

John Boehner has never tried to get a Democratic vote in his life.

Thank you President Obama and Senators Reid, Chuck Schumer, Sanders, Whitehouse and all Democratic Senators. Thank you Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and all Democratic Congresspersons for giving zero support to the Tea Party's wish list.

What is at stake is America's culture as a whole. We are making a grave mistake if we listen to the likes of Eric Cantor and Joe Walsh and Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Senator McCain couldn't take the heat from Sean Hannity. A United States Senator is kissing up to a war mongering little educated tv propagandist. He should be ashamed of himself.

John Boehner should scale back this nonsense. He needs to go to the adults in the room. If he does that, he will find success. I don't much care for the politics of all this. Boehner should just use some common sense and ditch the TP. They have only been in Congress for a few months and have made a mockery of our government. Never have I witnessed such disrespect. Never have I witnessed a group of legislators who don't have a clue what they're doing.

That's how we get wars guys. That's how we get recessions. That's how we get lay offs. That's how we get the poor and working class and senior citizens and students to fall further behind.

"It's clear now that Speaker Boehner will need Democratic votes to get any compromise through the House. And that leaves the Republican leader with two options: abandon Tea Party freshmen and form a coalition between his most moderate members and 150+ Dems, or potentially allow the last best hope for a debt ceiling deal to fail in his chamber, with nothing but market panic left to make his members reconsider. Either would be a bruising choice for the embattled Speaker."

http://news.yahoo.com/weak-speaker-failed-debt-vote-disarmed-nations-top-111905041.html

Ed Schultz spoke about John D. Rockefeller, Jr. last night. JD was an interesting man, who invested much in our country. This, he felt, was his obligation as an American citizen and human being. Rev. Al Sharpton spoke about what made our country great – the desire to see everyone lifted. To not bow down to the wealthy, but instead to lift up those less fortunate.

Below are words our country grew up with in the 20^th Century:

I Believe

I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master. I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.

I believe that thrift is essential to well ordered living and that economy is a prime requisite of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business or personal affairs.

I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order.

I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man's word should be as good as his bond; that character — not wealth or power or position — is of supreme worth.

I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.

I believe in an all-wise and all-loving God, named by whatever name, and that the individual's highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will.

I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

It looks like financial markets would have been in for a rough ride today...even without the debt ceiling impasse.

The Commerce Dept. is reporting 2nd qtr GDP at just 1.3%...much lower than forecasts.

GDP for the 1st qtr was revised to .4%, down from 1.9%...barely above contraction.

I can't believe that some are actually calling for tax increases under these economic conditions.

That's just begging for another recession.

Ron:

Nice post to end the week. I also would rather see Boehner and NOT Cantor. Boehner at least looks like he can have a meaningful discussion. Cantor on the other hand is a self serving impotent and arrogant politician that greatly over estimates his worth. Another legend in his own mind mentality. Sorry, people like that are not good for this country is we want to move forward instead of backwards.

Good post Ron......you may be right that he will keep his job, but I have to ask, how effective would he be. Those divisions are deeply entrenched.

The Pres will be on at 10:15a

I can't believe that some are actually calling for tax increases under these economic conditions.

That's just asking for another recession.

Yeah, because extending the Bush Tax Cuts is working SOOOOOOO well, right?

Navy,

No vote on the Boehner Bill – It appears that his leadership (rep. Boehner) not President Obama’s should be the one called into question

Pelosi is talking about the end of the world, and the last I’ve seen of Obama is John Stewart mocking him after Obama’s little national temper tantrum address on Monday. Stewart plays Obama telling everyone to call their congressional and senate reps …… Stewart says ‘that’s it…… did you just quit ….. the president in a time of crisis tells everyone to call their Congressman?’

Note to Stewart: Obama was/is nothing but a community organizer – that is exactly what community organizers say…… call your Congressman.

That was his “Don’t call my bluff?” This after he had no plan other than to hold out for new taxes ……. And now even Reid comes up with a plan ….. with no new taxes. Wow, what a relevant president.

So now in a time of crisis …… where is Obama?

MSNBC reporting that the DOW is going to open down by triple digits - Thanks you GOP/TP => "AINOS"

Back a ways the Nasty Redhead touted that Barry was playing chess on the debt ceiling issue while the Republican’s were playing tic-tac-toe. The debt ceiling is actually a high stakes poker game and what if Boehner is slow-playing the Dem rubes? What would put him in a stronger position on the final round of betting with the Dems than the credible ability to say he can’t get anything passed in the House without more concessions from them because of those “crazy tea partiers”?? Would Harry and Barry call him after he goes all-in?? Not likely.

FR: Tea Party and conservative House members don’t really care about important committee assignments. They don’t place a value on fundraising help. And earmarks and extra pork for their districts? Forget about it.

Wow, simply standing up for what they believe in, ran on and got elected to do. What a novel thing to do.

Maybe if the rest of the blowhards in DC would do the same thing, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Thank you as well to Democratic supporters here on First Read and everywhere else on the nets. There is much infighting going on with Democratic supporters right now. But we will survive it.

And that is only because of what we as Democrats and Americans believe in. Lifting people up. Not tearing them down.

This is just sickening!!!

I mean, is there no room any more for compromise???

Why does it have to be all one way or the other???

Is there no common ground anymore???

Can someone please explain to me why all of the Mello Yello was pulled from the vending machines where I work and replaced with Fanta Pineapple??? FANTA PINEAPPLE?!?! Who drinks Fanta Pineapple??? Are you telling me that Fanta Pineapple sells better than the Original Smooth??? I don't believe that!!!

Oh, yeah, and our government sucks, too.

MSNBC reporting that the DOW is going to open down by triple digits - Thanks you GOP/TP => "AINOS"

Amen Navy, I want to give a special thanks to W. Bush for getting this mess started.

Da Noid-

With the economy barely tracking along at a level above contraction, you want to start pulling money OUT of consumers' pockets?

You want to actually LOWER the consumer's ability to purchase goods and services?

But we will survive it.

And be stronger because of it Pat! ;o)

Why I Believe the Debt Ceiling is Unconstitutional

The 14th Amendment specifically states that the validity of the lawfully authorized debt of the United States cannot be questioned. When Congress passes spending measures, whether by budget bill or other appropriations bills, it authorizes the spending, and to the extent that spending exceeds revenue, it authorizes borrowing to cover the debt so incurred. At this point, we have lawfully authorized debt, including the interest on the original debt. The President, as chief executive, has the power to enter into debt agreements (e.g., notes) as necessary to carry out Congress's spending authorizations. Everyone knows that when you incur debt you also incur interest.

Under the 14th Amendment, Congress is granted the power to enforce its provisions through legislation. But any law that creates an artificial ceiling on debt does not "enforce" the provision that says lawfully authorized debt cannot be questioned. To the contrary, such a law necessarily violates that provision to the extent that it might call any previously authorized debt, including interest, into question. And thus, the debt ceiling itself, being exactly contrary to the enforcement mechanism of the 14th Amendment, is unconstitutional to that extent.

Thus, an argument can be made that the President, in reality, is actually free to ignore the debt ceiling entirely and continue paying our bills.

I'll await your comments.

DaNoid:

The AINOS still are stuck on stupid with the tax cut crap. All we have to do is look at the last 10 years plus to see that it does not work. Makes you laugh how they can even think of writing the same BS every day when the proof that they are dead wrong is staring every American in the face when we get up every day.

Just shows everybody that they (AINOS) continue to bring nothing new to the table and what they do bring is spoiled and rotting.

President Obama 2012 and we take back the House

PAT: Great post to end the week. Kudos! Right on the money.

MSNBC reporting that the DOW is going to open down by triple digits

____________________________________

Let's hope. I have already placed GTC limit buy orders for a few stocks that will be unaffected by the stupidity in Washington, like AAPL, at 20% discounts to last weeks prices for short term trades. Bargains like this don't come around very often and like Rahm Emannual says, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". Thanks Barry, and you won't even get your STCG taxes because I do my ST trading in my IRA. LOL!!!

Err Joe You do Know that 65 to 70% of our debt is held by Us. We the People. So your saying that we shouldn't pay ourselves. Makes no sense to me

Mixed Bag: Da Noid-With the economy barely tracking along at a level above contraction, you want to start pulling money OUT of consumers' pockets? You want to actually LOWER the consumer's ability to purchase goods and services?

Who cares what the Noid thinks, he's no danger to anyone. It's what Obama and the Democrats think, and in that case the Noid and Obama are in agreement. For each of them, raising taxes is the way to improve a poor economy and bring the country back to prosperity. They both suffer from the same delusions.

Also, look for that 1.3% GDP number to be revised downward in a few months. And of course, to all these expert economists we have in the country, it will be "unexpected".

With the economy barely tracking along at a level above contraction, you want to start pulling money OUT of consumers' pockets?

You want to actually LOWER the consumer's ability to purchase goods and services?

President Obama and the Democrats wanted to continue the cuts for 98%. The Republicans demanded they be continued for the top 2% who are rich...er..."job creators". So, what if they weren't continued for the top 2%?

"Honey, looks like we can only afford one new Mercedes this year!"

Oh, I feel so sorry for them.

Who cares what the Noid thinks, he's no danger to anyone.

What I don't get to vote in this country any more?

The latter part of this post I also put up at First Read. But here it's important to make note of the news about slowed economic growth. While the right wingers will claim it's another "Obama failure," in fact it is a prediction of what to expect if the Tea Party gets its way with major cuts in spending and collapsing of government programs.

Since the beginning of the year, many states have slashed spending, laid off or fired workers, cut or eliminated social safety net programs, and "privatized" operations including public schools. The net result is that unemployment rose accordingly, consumer spending fell substantially, tax revenues fell substantially, and economic growth contracted. That is entirely due to the failed "free market" ideology of the Milton Friedman style, the kind of ideology embraced by the right wing, which does NOT understand economics and government.

Absolutely raising taxes and closing loopholes is needed. Absolutely, further government intervention is possible and necessary to generate growth and employment. And absolutely, the rabid right is totally blind to not only these needs, but the proven bankruptcy of their ideology.

More and more, reporters, commentators, and just ordinary folk are coming to realize that the so-called “debt and deficit crisis” has been overblown in ultra-right propaganda to force unwise and precipitous actions serving purely ideological goals.

And the vehicle that the right wing is using to help further their efforts is the usually-innocuous debt ceiling vote. As Naomi Klein calls it, they are creating chaos to promote “disaster capitalism.”

On Thursday evening (July 28, 2011), while House Speaker John Boehner tried and failed to round up ultra-conservative votes for his debt ceiling bill, author Thomas Frank appeared on CNN to point out that there is indeed no reason whatsoever to consider American national debt, and current budget deficits, an immediate crisis. This author of The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves and Beggared America, went further to explain that the kinds of cuts pushed by the conservative movement would actually cause a retreat into recession, cost jobs, and prolong economic distress at home and abroad.

Frank did not hesitate to point out that the hard line of the ultra-right is purely ideological. He could have continued on, as it has become evident from his writing, Klein’s writing, the works of economist Joseph Stiglitz, as well as journalists Matt Taibbi and Robert Scheer, that the extreme right wing intends to replace traditional American capitalism with a Japanese-styled cartel political economy. Alex Kerr, in Dogs and Demons: Tales from Japan’s Dark Side, gives a terrifying detailed image of what in fact is almost the nature of relations between business, politicians, and the public in America today – but it has been so in Japan almost since the end of World War II.

An orchestrated, intentional and massive economic crisis in the United States is perfectly acceptable to a great many ultra-right Republicans in the House and Senate. To them it could create the opportunity of several generations, to essentially conduct a legislative coup d’état that would fundamentally alter the character and future of American government, business and private life.

Fortunately, at least now in the waning hours before a possible new collapse brought on, Samson-like, by tearing down the pillars of the national temple of finance, some observers are last getting the message. The propaganda, deceptions and outright lies of the right wing are being exposed, along with the nefarious goals of the national home-wreckers.

Navy: Well written and well thought out as usual.

Pat: Your posts always bring sanity to this crazy political climate. Looks like your Patriots picked up a loose cannon. Hope you coach has a lot of duct tape.

GBM: Thanks for your comment. Boehner will not be effective as he lacks the leadership skills of Nancy Pelosi. As you know, I'm not a fan of Boehner. It's more of an issue of dumb or bumber. I guess I pick dumb.

Pat, Boston, terrific post. Thank you for reminding us of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s eloquent words.

Joe in Albany commented ...

Barry wants a blank check to continue paying for his big govt, run up the Chinese credit card spending addiction.

Yea Obama is pretty much an addict ...... do we need a debt ceiling or a 12 step Program for Barry?

What is pretty weird, this almost feels like an intervention ...... everyone getting together to address the problem, the addict still in denial and out of the room, the friends and family trying to come up with a plan while the addict lives in lala land ......

Anyway .... just a thought .....

Bottom-line - a 12 step Program would never work for Obama ...... how would a narcissist like Obama ever accept a higher power?

And that is only because of what we as Democrats and Americans believe in. Lifting people up. Not tearing them down.

This really sums up the difference between the left and the New right. We care about AmericaFIRST and believe in that everybody should have the opportunity to be the best they can me. To help those in need and work together. The New Right is all about themselves and the destruction of those that do not fit their DRACONIAN Ideology. To gut programs that help all Americans, to try and create a Society based on Wealth and Power of a few.

The New Right is not an American Ideology that will work in our Country unless we are prepared to become slaves to them.

I am not that is why I am voting for President Obama in 2012. You have a vote to, so use it wisely you may not get another one.

Feisty Redhead:

It's come to light the current tea bagging darling Rep. Joe Walsh (R) IL is also a dead beat dad!

The alleged fiscal hawk owes his ex-wife $117,000 in BACK child support for his 3 children.

Well, you gotta give old Joe credit for one thing: At least he's consistent. He's a deadbeat dad who doesn't pay his bills and he wants the United States of America to be a deadbeat nation that doesn't pay its bill as well.

Da Noid-

So you favor the Bush tax cuts for 98% of Americans?

You sound incoherent.

Make up your mind.

In any event...

President Obama has assured that the Bush tax cuts remain in effect for all Americans through 2012.

So...moot point, Da Noid.

Of course, President Obama could have embraced the Plan of his debt commission, joined with Senators Coburn and Durbin (and others) to get it enacted into law, and the reforms to the existing tax code would have eliminated the Bush tax cuts once and for all.

I'll bet the President wishes he could have a do-over right about now.

I'll bet Bowles-Simpson looks very, very good this morning.

Thus, an argument can be made that the President, in reality, is actually free to ignore the debt ceiling entirely and continue paying our bills.

I'll await your comments.

______________________________________

AM: The following is from the US Bureau of the Public Debt. Without the debt ceiling Congress would STILL have to approve the issuance of US debt. The Pesident cannot do it on his own.

In recent years there has been a "debt ceiling" in effect. Whereas Congress once approved legislation for every debt issuance, the growth of government fiscal operations in the 20th century made this impractical. (For example, the Treasury now conducts more than 200 sales of debt by auction every year to fund over $4 trillion in debt operations.) The Treasury was granted authority by the Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt did not exceed a stated ceiling.

Looks like your Patriots picked up a loose cannon. Hope your coach has a lot of duct tape.

Yes people here are wondering if this is a bridge too far for the coach. LoL.

Anna Molly -

Your take on the 14th Amendment is fascinating.

It goes along with some of my earlier writing that the debt limit law itself is a useless artifact from WWI, when it was first created as a means of monitoring the progress of war bond sales. Prior to that time, the United States sold Treasury bonds and other instruments to finance operations as necessary, simply complying with Congress' appropriations and authorizations for expenditures.

By itself, the debt ceiling is actually completely unnecessary, and you may be right that it improperly intrudes upon the authority of the Executive to carry out its duties.

By the way, Joe in Albany is, as usual, incorrect. The debt ceiling was included in the language of the second war bond act passed in 1917, and was later amended in 1939 and 1941. It was never intended for the use Joe ascribed to it. Oh, well, some people don't need facts when they have wonderful pillows of propaganda and BS to cushion them.

Here comes Obama with yet another speech he'll drone through. Obama's speeches are as exciting as listening to your local weatherman talking about a cold front coming through the area.

And Obama's talking points are starting to get to be a little old. The thread-bare "Obama is the only adult in the room"' chant is just not true, mostly because Obama was so useless and juvenile in the debt/budget meetings, everyone got sick of him and threw him out the door. Next is the "GOP is taking the country hostage" mantra - hardly. It's the GOP that is coming up with idea after idea, and passing bill after bill trying to figure out just what Obama and Senator Reid won't say NO to. The job is made more difficult because Obama and Reid won't say what they are for, only what they are against. The "gun to the head" whine that Obama had to extend the Bush tax cuts, now Obama tax cuts, so he could get unemployment insurance extension is another lie from Obama. Obama had the Senate and the House and could have voted the unemployment extensions through without the GOP and he could have eliminated the Obama tax extension by doing absolutely nothing.

Of course there is the ever popular "I inherited all these problems" claim that Obama keeps repeating. At some point Obama has to put his big boy pants on and not whine about what is wrong with the past and set a direction to the future. But seeing Obama has no direction for the future, he continues to whine about the past.

Get the popcorn, because Mr. Lead From Behind will be showing up soon enough to bless us all with yet another boring speech. Maybe he'll talk about Winning The Future (WTF).

It is rather amusing to listen to the right-wingers going on about how one day the left notes that the Republicans march in lock-step and the next day they note that the Republicans are in disarray.

Let me clear that up. The Republicans are still marching in lockstep. The problem is they have two right legs. One is very, very, very far right, and the other is simply right of center. This presents a very interesting picture in the world of geometry and explains why Republicans are going in circles.

In that same vein, this makes Boehner's job much tougher than it was when Pelosi had it. Boehner is faced with two groups of Republicans. One wants to reduce 99% of Americans to poverty overnight, and the other group prefers to stretch the time frame such that they might line their own pockets in the interim.

Democrats on the other hand share a general left-wing view, which is shaped by a large number of variables, thus compromise is actually easier on the left than the right.

Note to Bob lotsanumbers: While you are derisively referring to the President as a community organizer, I must point out that John Boehner (R - Asylum) cannot organize a group of Republicans, who are all on the government dole. Tell me please, how does a group of Republicans, each receiving a government check for $174,000 annually, differ from your standard "welfare queen"? They both do nothing for their money. Aside from the size of their welfare checks, I really can't see much of a difference.

So, I see all we're going to get from our friends on the Right is "Barry" this and "Barry" that.

The Speaker of the House had a bill yesterday on the debt ceiling all ready to be considered for a vote and he what did he do?

HE PULLED THE PLUG ON IT!!!

Don't any of you...ANY of you have anything to say about what Speaker Boehner did yesterday?

Anything?

John A:

Outstanding post today. I have nothing to add you covered all the bases on this one. Great job.

Funny how people do not understand that we the people own a big part of the National Debt. A point the the GOP/TP continues to not point out anymore than they point out or accept how we got here in the first place.

Thus, an argument can be made that the President, in reality, is actually free to ignore the debt ceiling entirely and continue paying our bills.

I'll await your comments.

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

Good morning Anna Molly,

It's great to have you, an adult in the room.

Ouch. Well, there you go.

In recent years there has been a "debt ceiling" in effect. Whereas Congress once approved legislation for every debt issuance, the growth of government fiscal operations in the 20th century made this impractical. (For example, the Treasury now conducts more than 200 sales of debt by auction every year to fund over $4 trillion in debt operations.) The Treasury was granted authority by the Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt did not exceed a stated ceiling.

But this just reinforces my argument that ALL of this debt ceiling nonsense is unConstitutional, including Congress's attempt to limit Treasury's issuance of debt where the interest would ultimately exceed the debt ceiling.

Don't you think our creditors would be very interested to read about this?

You think things are shaky now? Just try telling them that the US believes it can ignore paying interest on debt just by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

By the way, Joe, John A's comments reminded me that you may be interested to know that Congress actually lowered the debt ceiling during the Truman administration, after the war was over.

This meant that another mechanism had to be found to finance the Korean War, and lo and behold, Congress found one.

Want to know what it was?

Taxes.

Imagine funding a war by raising taxes. Unthinkable, huh?

Prior to that time, the United States sold Treasury bonds and other instruments to finance operations as necessary, simply complying with Congress' appropriations and authorizations for expenditures.

______________________________________

John A: Wrong, according to the US Bureau of the Public Debt. See the copy and paste from their web site below:

In recent years there has been a "debt ceiling" in effect. Whereas Congress once approved legislation for every debt issuance, the growth of government fiscal operations in the 20th century made this impractical. (For example, the Treasury now conducts more than 200 sales of debt by auction every year to fund over $4 trillion in debt operations.) The Treasury was granted authority by the Congress to issue such debt as was needed to fund government operations as long as the total debt did not exceed a stated ceiling.

Can Republicans govern?

If by "govern" you mean cause us to default on our debts, lose our AAA credit rating, and slide into a Depression, then, of course, "yes."

Anna Molly:

Thanks for your take on the 14th Amendment. Your comments ring true to me.

MB-

"I can't believe that some are actually calling for tax increases under these economic conditions."

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Am I reading you wrong here?

NOW you're towing the (no revenue increases) party line? What happened to your support for the S/B debt commission and Tom Coburn & the Gang? Raising revenue by overhauling our moribund tax code is now "raising taxes"?

There is no reasonable bi-partisan plan that DOESN'T include both, and you supported them.

Can Harry come out from under the desk? No "Incoming!" seems likely for the time being...

I don't see how you can support either idiotic tribe and their political football game. It's time for a 3rd way, a third party or maybe a 4th, 5th, and more parties.

I'd love to have seen what you'd be writing today if it was Harry who had been unable to muster the votes in a public humiliation like the speaker has endured...Boehner and Cantor on the same page? I think Cantor is an "Iago" my friend, and he cares only about his own career.

Hurray Hurray their in disarray, no TeaPotty votes for another day. ROTFLMAO.

Noiders: President Obama and the Democrats wanted to continue the cuts for 98%. The Republicans demanded they be continued for the top 2% who are rich...er..."job creators". So, what if they weren't continued for the top 2%?

Sorry Noids, not even close. Prior to the 2010 elections, then Minority Leader John Boehner said this:

In a pre-taped interview to appear on CBS' "Face the Nation"Sunday, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said that, if approving a bill to extend breaks for middle class income Americans were "the only option," he would support it.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/12/ftn/main6858401.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

So the deal was on the table Noid. The Democrats still owned Congress at the time, that's all they had to do was put the legislation together to eliminate the tax breaks for the richest 2% and they would have had Republican support when it came to a vote.

But Obama and the Democrats didn't take the deal. Why is that?

Excellent posts this morning to everyone who is on my side.

And you're all on my side because we're all in this together. Let's remember that today and going forward through these particularly perilous times.

Because even some miracle occurs and compromise is reached on raising the debt ceiling, a lot of work remains to be done, and I doubt the tone in Washington has been improved much by this exercise.

Let's not let ourselves buy into that. Let's speak kindly to each other, at least.

dangerfield:

Am I reading you wrong here?

NOW you're towing the (no revenue increases) party line? What happened to your support for the S/B debt commission and Tom Coburn & the Gang? Raising revenue by overhauling our moribund tax code is now "raising taxes"?

There is no reasonable bi-partisan plan that DOESN'T include both, and you supported them

As John B., Des Moines, IA is famous for saying around this blog, with the new GDP information now available, it certainly looks like we have what John has termed - "Changing conditions".

So DF, do you trust the government to do the right thing with any new tax revenues they collect, the right thing being using it to pay down the deficit? Or do you think they'd just spend that money too?

So the deal was on the table Noid. The Democrats still owned Congress at the time, that's all they had to do was put the legislation together to eliminate the tax breaks for the richest 2% and they would have had Republican support when it came to a vote.

But Obama and the Democrats didn't take the deal. Why is that?

Meanwhile, over in the Senate...

Senator Mitch McConnell: "Knock knock!"

Senator Harry Reid: "Who's there?"

McConnell: "Phil."

Reid: "Phil, who?"

McConnell: "Filibuster!"

Anna Molly and John A:

Great discussion on the Debt Ceiling. I think we are the only Industrialized Nation that even has such an animal. Governments are always a WIP and as time marches on needs increase as we grow bigger. To assume that it cost less is bogus. Can we do it smarter and more efficiently yes and that should be the issue not just a wholesale gutting of everything.

I keep saying the a targeted Job Bill is needed. President Obama tried and the AINOS blocked it - It was his Infrastructure Bill and other legislation for job growth.

I am tired of hearing McConnell say how hard the GOP/TP is working and how they are showing leadership. OK, what have they done in the last 2 years plus to move this country forward - show us one thing they they have done to create jobs, stimulate the economy or improve education. Just one. And about leadership the AINOS gets an "F" grade. These guys have not provided any leadership to move us forward. Instead they continue to be "Obstructionist" and their new strategy is "Cut and Run". Sorry where I come from that is not leadership. That is just being STUPID.

As we look at what is going on today I find it amazing that President Obama has been able to accomplish as much as he has when working with a party thats only goal in life is to make you fail.

President Obama in 2012. THis is not over by a long shot.

You are most definitely reading me wrong, dangerfield.

My remarks are in the context of the repeal of all or part of the hated (at First Read, anyway) Bush-era tax cuts under the existing tax code.

Those tax cuts are swept away by reform of the existing tax code under either Bowles-Simpson, or the "Gang Of Six" proposal. I can support either plan.

I absolutely do not favor repeal of the Bush tax cuts under the present tax code, particularly under present economic conditions.

There's no contradiction, dangerfield.

Cool your jets, friend.

According to the 14th amendment you are correct, President Obama can deal with the existing debt. He cannot incur more debt nor can he approve a budget without congress.

To all the FR lefty liberals that asset that the President can issue US debt on his own, you might want to consider the following provision in the Constitution that assigns that power to CONGRESS. I don't think the 14th repealed this section of the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power ...

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Morons.

Noid: Honey, looks like we can only afford one new Mercedes this year!"

That certainly is bad news for the workers that construct Mercedes, especially the ones working at the Mercedes factory in Tuscaloosa Alabama. Maybe Obama should put an excise tax on those non-union American shops, that should help with creating jobs - overseas jobs.

Joe in Albany:

Based on your post at 1.58, you do not grasp the significance of an amendment to the Constitution. If your understanding were correct there would be no point in a balanced budget amendment, or a first, or a second, or a third amendment......right?

Bill, Fairfax VA

President Obama was elected, not appointed, to the Presidency of the United States. I'm sorry if you did not vote for him, however, the majority of people in the United States did.

I think it's safe to say we've lived out the Republicans' "vision for Amerika" and it looks like the rich got richer, infrastructure and education deteriorated and the middle class lost income. Let's try Obama's Way for awhile, shall we?

For Joe and others who are interested in this: an article that reinforces my reasoning about how we are being perceived by our creditors, and why in my opinion, Congress's actions that feed that perception, including the way it authorizes debt only if it stays below the debt ceiling -- thereby ignoring situations where, for example, interest alone will drive the debt over the ceiling -- actually violate the 14th Amendment.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/the-damage-is-already-done/

Why does no one else have a debt ceiling?

Because when a legislature votes to authorize spending at a certain level but authorizes tax revenues at a lower level, it is assumed that the government will have to borrow the difference.

The vote to have higher expenditures than tax revenues is - in effect - a vote to borrow money to cover the difference.

And in the United States, Congress - including Republicans - voted for a budget in which expenditures exceeded tax revenues.

The logical consequence of that budget - again, passed by Republicans and Democrats, is that the government has to make up the difference by borrowing.

To come at it now after the budget has been passed is like getting your Visa bill and calling up the company to say, "Actually we don't want to buy all that stuff we bought."

It's like this guy read my mind. Seriously.

Joe:

The Congress shall have Power ...

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

Morons.

Joe: Calm down. Yes, Congress has the power to authorize borrowing. The President (Article II) has the "executive" power. This is why the President, through the "executive" branch, actually does the borrowing and the paying.

But while Congress has power under Article 8 to borrow, the 14th Amendment takes away Congress's "power" to disavow the debt it incurs when it does so. And any attempt to do that, either through debt ceiling or other legislation, necessarily violates the 14th Amendment, which Congress has only power to "enforce," not abrogate.

JS1

I have supported a realistic and bi-partisan approach to our LONG TERM debt. S/B commission or gang of six proposals.

Don't get me wrong, I have always believed that the dems were the ones doing the right thing, but getting the upper hand does not mean much if there is no compromise. I think the dems have done plenty of that lately, but they still should try and work something out with the those that are still sane on the republican side. Showing the republicans for what they are and winning a moral victory is good, but in the end it means nothing if we default and can't pay our bills.

Anna Molly, Even I will take this (rare) opportunity to throw some kudos your way. Makes total sense to me. The debt ceiling, at this point, is really nothing but a means toward political capital. It's done nothing to keep spending in check and the only real limit to the debt we can carry is how much our creditors are willing to lend us. This whole exercise is pointless at best, harmful in action and utterly absurd.

Suzy ~ my sincere thank you. We'll never get anywhere if we can't get past these simple concepts on which everyone should agree. You are absolutely right.

Neither political party has the correct answer! We can thank the Tea Party for pointing that out.

Now can you get back in there and climb out of your my way box and come up with some new ideas?

Everything around us continually changes yet they play the same game of political tug of war.

Stubborn Stupidity.

Don't you get it we have tried your way! That goes for all of YOU!

I agree with Ron Paul's logic but the man has absolutely no creativity.

Joe in Albany: Typical right winger, your only loyalty is to MONEY. This is why our country is in such dire straits--the obscene greed of people/corporations who already have more money than they could ever spend in their lifetimes. They buy politicians, and Supreme Court justices, to protect them from having to pay any taxes or to have any kind of regulations on their businesses, so they can keep up unethical practices that steal from poor and working people. 1 in 5 children in America now living in poverty. Yeah, what a great country.

When Congress passes spending measures, whether by budget bill or other appropriations bills, it authorizes the spending, and to the extent that spending exceeds revenue, it authorizes borrowing to cover the debt so incurred

AM -- I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV. But it seems to me you are assuming that when Congress EXPLICITLY passes bills that authorize and appropriate dollars, by virtue of that action they also IMPLICITLY authorize the borrowing to cover any debts incurred. I have a problem with that presumption because anything that is not EXPLICITlY stated by Congress is necessarily -- well, it's necessarily a presumption. And it's presumptions like that that get us into trouble, whether it be from activist judges who try to legislate from the bench, or well meaning liberal lawyers who craft clever arguments to support their positions.

Furthermore, Congress could have passed legislation to raise the additional revenues necessary to cover the dollars they authorized and appropriated. But making an explicit choice not to do so does not imply that the legislation passed by Congres which places a limit on the debt the country can incur is invalid. To the contrary, one can view the debt ceiling legislation as a disciplinary tool (yes, I type that with a straight face) Congress uses to rein in their own excesses. And today, Congress may be on the verge of taking that disciplinary tool seriously by refusing to increase the debt limit Congress itself has established.

The VALIDITY of the duly authorized debt is not being questioned, what is being questioned today is how we chose to pursue paying that debt, to wit: Do we raise the debt ceiling and just roll over portions of the current debt by borrowing even more; or do we force government to retrench and apply the resources it does have to pursue a prioritized repayment schedule. A prioritized repayment schedule conducted within the coinstraints of current government revenues does not invalidate the debts we owe; it just puts some payees at the front of the line, and others farther back.

That's the way it looks from my vantage point.

David Walker,

Note to Bob lotsanumbers: While you are derisively referring to the President as a community organizer,

Obama was and is a community organizer - I gave you the perfect example ...... he calls for an address and tells the people to call their Congressman. Where is his plan? He is supposed to be the leader but he is too big a gutless coward to even put what he wants down on paper! A leader .... with no plan ...... nothing on paper that says this is what we need to do ..... nothing that can be scored? An executive that doesn't even have a budget? That sound more like an executive to you than a community organizer?

In fairness, he is other things beyond community organizer.

He is a narcissist whose only accomplishment is to write 2 books about himself before he ever accomplished anything.

He is an ideologue who was scored as a senator to the left of a self-described socialist.

He is liar. He is a demagogue .....

I must point out that John Boehner (R - Asylum) cannot organize a group of Republicans, who are all on the government dole. Tell me please, how does a group of Republicans, each receiving a government check for $174,000 annually, differ from your standard "welfare queen"?

Here is a crazy idea that I'm sure you have never thought of ......

Boehner did not put the tea party congressmen into office - their constituents did. They campaigned, made a pledge to their constituents, were selected and trying to serve the will of the people who put them into office.

In fact, if it wasn't for the tea party, Boehner wouldn't have the job as Speaker.

And you call them welfare queens? Are you really that stupid and bigoted?

In all fairness, the dems could be called whores to the welfare queens (give them more for their vote) - but I never thought of dems or even Moochelle as a welfare queen ...... and her little vacation safari paid for by the tax payers alone, would have bought 4 at $174 each - right?

Thanks for your comments David.

The US GDP for Q1 has been adjusted downward today from a sad 1.9% to a dismal 0.4%. Who cooked those books? The US GDP for Q2 today is reported at 1.3%. In my view, there is no recovery in this economy despite our government throwing nearly $450 billion around during this period, the most 'spend to grow' money of all Nations.

US spending is ending because she is broke, and the spending is doing harm, not good.

Germany today reported all-time record consumer spending, and a 6.3% GDP. It is interesting that Germany throws the least amount of money at her economy of any Nation.

Scott, you are grasping at straws. That's like saying the sun is shining in Germany, so that is the reason GDP is growing. Take a minute, look at their social programs versus the US. Look at the divide between haves and have nots in German vs the US. Analyse what their economy is based on vs the US. Look at the to population size of Germany vs the US. I am tired of you conservatives listening to two people (Beck and Limbaugh) twist facts that you greedily eat. Take a look for yourself, do a real analysis, then get back to me.

If he!! froze over and mainstream Republicans suddenly got really bright (o.k., so maybe he!! would have to freeze over two nights in a row...), they would REJECT the tea party entirely and become the...ahem..."moderate" element in congress. They could then pretty much hold to their traditional GOP values, and still frame both the tea party and the democrats as "extreme". They could claim the middle ground, by simple default. Instead, those traditional Republicans sweat out every single vote because they can't get the tea party-types to bend even a little. Why bother? I don't get it.

I'm a Democrat, but even I see the truth here. Traditional GOP values could be viewed as moderate and acceptable, when compared to what the tea party wants. The dems have already given up on raising taxes and are willing to just cut spending. Isn't that what traditional Republicans always wanted? Like, EXACTLY? All the tea party has really done is to harm the Republican base, by making what should be relatively easy, no-brainer votes quite difficult...if not just by simple association. Go figure. The dems are willing to accept pure spending cuts...and it STILL isn't good enough. How could that possibly be construed as the fault of Democrats?

Unbelievable.

Bob lotsanumbers:

Let's start with some of your quotes: "Here is a crazy idea that I'm sure you have never thought of ......" You are absolutely correct. I don't think of crazy ideas. I'll leave the crazy ideas to you and your Tea Party brethren.

As far as being Speaker, it is a job for which Boehner asked. He is clearly not up to the task, thanks to the very Tea Party that elected him. You want to parse that as something other than another crazy idea.

Another quote from you: "And you call them welfare queens?" Yes, I do. Republicans have done absolutely nothing to earn their income. They're all about taking: Taking rights, taking government handouts, taking office space. They are on the dole in every sense of the word. By the way, I note you responded to my question with another question. How's that work, bob?

Another quote: "Are you really that stupid and bigoted?" No, I am neither stupid nor bigoted. See how that works? I actually supply you with answers to your questions.

As to your last question: "In all fairness, the dems could be called whores to the welfare queens (give them more for their vote) - but I never thought of dems or even Moochelle as a welfare queen ...... and her little vacation safari paid for by the tax payers alone, would have bought 4 at $174 each - right?" I honestly can't answer that question bob. I don't know how much a whore costs. I won't quarrel with your figure. I'll defer to your experience in that world.

@Bill

My last post wasn't entirely clear. But the arguments you make beg exactly the same answer. It's unConstitutional under the 14th Amendment to engage in spending and authorize borrowing, and then abrogate those obligations if they, by their very nature, exceed some artificial debt ceiling that Congress has created.

Congress simply cannot enforce a law that supersedes the 14th Amendment. That is the very essence of unconstitutionality.

The 14th Amendment gives Congress ONLY the power to RECOGNIZE the validity of debt, and to enforce that provision. There are no limitations on this that would allow Congress to adopt any legislation that is CONTRARY to that mandate. Thus, the US MUST recognize its previously authorized debt obligations, which necessarily includes any interest that may accrue on the debt.

To believe otherwise is to believe, as the article I quote above also said, that we can charge on our credit card and then just tell the credit card company that we have no intention of honoring the obligation to pay interest that comes with the credit card merely because it exceeds what we feel like paying.

And that's all a debt ceiling really is.

Not only is this unconstitutional in the first place, but it seems to me that it is very BAD business, and business-oriented folks like you and Joe should be the first to acknowledge this.

Do we raise the debt ceiling and just roll over portions of the current debt by borrowing even more; or do we force government to retrench and apply the resources it does have to pursue a prioritized repayment schedule. A prioritized repayment schedule conducted within the coinstraints of current government revenues does not invalidate the debts we owe; it just puts some payees at the front of the line, and others farther back.

This sounds fine in theory, and actually I said pretty much the same thing on First Thoughts yesterday, although not as well as you say it, but this isn't what anyone is currently talking about. What they're currently talking about is merely allowing us to go into default because otherwise we will exceed the debt ceiling, and my point goes only to the unconstitutionality of the debt ceiling if such a thing is allowed to occur.

But while Congress has power under Article 8 to borrow, the 14th Amendment takes away Congress's "power" to disavow the debt it incurs when it does so.

______________________________________________

AM: The 14th EXPLICILTY says the public debt it pertains to MUST be "authorized by law". Yesterday you made the case that the Constitution is "the law of the land". Therefore, any public debt issued without Congresses explicit approval as authorized by Article 1 Section 8 is NOT "authorized by law" because the 14th does not repeal Article 1 Section 8. Since appropriations bills do not explicitly authorize the issuance of US public debt the 14th does not apply to them.

Amendment 14: 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

Their job is to represent their constituents.

Their constituents want Obama checked, no crazy out of control spending. no new taxes ....

They are making remarkable progress and executing the will of the people who put them in office.

BTW - If you are not stupid and bigoted, quit saying saying stupid and bigoted stuff.

It's unConstitutional under the 14th Amendment to engage in spending and authorize borrowing, and then abrogate those obligations if they, by their very nature, exceed some artificial debt ceiling that Congress has created.

_________________________________________

AM:Appropriations bills only authorize SPENDING, they DO NOT authorize issuance of public debt. The 14th does not apply to appropriations bills no matter how much you think it should because they IMPLY the need to borrow. That's the reason the WH doesn't believe Barry has the power to issue public debt without Congresses approval

Joe in Albany

Recently, a lot of FR lefty liberals have tried to make the case that approving Barry’s $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 is about spending that is “already approved and owed”, NOT future spending. When I asked the question “Is any of the $2.4 trillion going to be used to pay for the approximately $1.5 trillion in deficit spending in the, as yet UNAPPROVED, 2011-12 federal budget year beginning next October 1?”, all I got was silence or gibberish. So I will again ask the FR lefty liberals that are taking the position that the $2.4 trillion Barry wants is for spending that is “already approved and owed”:

Will any of that $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 go to pay for the, yet to be approved, 2011-12 federal budget’s $1.5 trillion in deficit spending (for everything from utilities for federal buildings, to paper clips, to avgas for Air Force One, to Medicaid, to WH staff salaries), which, by definition, is FUTURE spending??

And, if you say “no”, then you have to answer the question: How will that 2011-12 $1.5 trillion deficit spending be paid for??

Bottom line from my perspective is Barry wants a blank check to continue paying for his big govt, run up the Chinese credit card spending addiction.

Sorry Joe, the continuing resolution passed several months ago makes the current year's spending approved (based on the CR rules) and anything spent is "past" spending. Nice try though.

How is that "Pledge for Prosperity" the Republicans signed off in January going? Where are the jobs? Why has the unemployment rate only risen under your House control? What are you doing up there?

The House has passed 7 pieces of legislation since the Republicans took control. Pelosi had passed 300 a year under her tenure. Where is the jobs legislation Republicons???

Looks like Scott's claim, like the majority of Conservative talking points, is a lie. In terms of government spending as a proportion of GDP Germany is 41st, USA 144th. http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

If Scott wants to consider this a measure of good government policy leading to a strong economy I have to agree...Germany has it figured out MUCH better than the USA.

That also includes the Conservative devotion to the religion of deregulation, btw. Germany's recession was never as deep as ours because they didn't set up a Laissez Faire banking system capable of crashing the entire economy.

Sorry Joe, the continuing resolution passed several months ago makes the current year's spending approved (based on the CR rules) and anything spent is "past" spending. Nice try though.

_______________________________________

What part of "the approximately $1.5 trillion in deficit spending in the, as yet UNAPPROVED, 2011-12 federal budget year beginning next October 1?" in my post did you NOT understand??

Bob(numb) the 21% approval rating Congressional Republicans are receiving for their handling of the debt ceiling doesn't speak too highly of their ability to do what their constituents desire.

What they're currently talking about is merely allowing us to go into default

I don't think that's the case -- unless you define "default" as not, for example, paying Sicial Security checks on time versus not paying the interest on our debt to our bondholders. The latter is what is generally viewed as "default" and by many accounts the Treasury will have enough revenues to pay those folks -- as well as many others. What they won't have enough revenues to pay for are many other operations of government which could force, for example, furloughing government employess in the Dept of Eduaction or delaying Social Security checks. Some might view those outcomes as "bad" but they would not be "default."

Reading through most of these posts, I feel like I am watching a football game (Season's on this year and not far away.. Yay!). Some of the players are mixed up, some have their game faces on... some are still thinking about plays long gone.

For anyone that is of the opinion that the republicans are soley responsible for the problems we face... you are just closeminded, the same goes with those that think it's only the democrats fault. The reality is, it's everyone's fault. This is from the Big O, all the way down to the lowly congressman.

If a new mindset of working with the opposition were to develop, what would be the outcome? Progress! I can understand the Tea Party's position... how many liberals can say that honestly? Their position is... The government has spent too much, for too long and drastic measures need to be taken to stop the spiraling towards economic disaster. They believe that there is no other way because all forms of compromise, in the past, have failed. Hey liberals - Stop the name calling and try to understand them... they aren't all wrong. You just don't like their methods.

I also understand the democrat position. They want a government to cover all the bases, create a sense of fairness across the country and bring equality to all aspects of life. They believe this is the best way for the country to operate... they aren't all wrong.

The republican position is in the most turmoil right now. They are struggling to identify themselves, once again. They are fighting popular opinion of the democrats and they are using that as a gauge to direct their actions. They don't seem to have the confidence to stand on their own, state their position and stick with it. To me, the republicans are wishy-washy. The only backbone they are actually getting is from the Tea Party members. I actually believe the top echelon of republicans are true liberals... not the politicians, but the moneymen.

So what do we do? Try to understand each other's position. We the people need to get along or we will lose our freedom to someone that will step in and take over. I live by one principle... never trust a politician, no matter who they are.

So, I see all we're going to get from our friends on the Right is "Barry" this and "Barry" that.

This is the rhetoric you get from a Party that has no ideas and the ones that they do have are responsible for this total mess we are in.

What part of "the approximately $1.5 trillion in deficit spending in the, as yet UNAPPROVED, 2011-12 federal budget year beginning next October 1?" in my post did you NOT understand??

Joe, listen closely.........the current year being spent NOW (FYE 9/30/11) is part of the Continuing Resolution. it allows spending NOW, based on spending form the previous yea'r APPROVED budget. The spending could not be done, FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR, without a CR.

The spending for FY 12 (10/1/11 - 9/30/12) will be discussed when the budget is approved (or a CR is passed). THAT is the time to have the discussion cut spending (defense spending too), fix tax-loopholes, lower rates, and fix entitlements. NOT NOW, like the Teabaggers want. We don't know how that spending will be done, or even if there will be a deficit.

Mixed Bag,

Answer me this: If tax cuts are so important to creating jobs and stimulating the economy, why has job growth and the economy fallen ever since the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted over 10 years ago? Do you not see how the decline in economic growth goes along with those unnecessary cuts?

The top 1% in this country are NOT consumers like you and I and letting the tax cuts expire for that group takes NOTHING out of the pockets of real consumers (middle class). It will, however, significantly cut the deficit (that was created mostly by two wars and tax cuts being done simultaneously) and give the government (also known as WE THE PEOPLE) the money to conduct much needed repairs on the infrastructure of this country, thereby creating many construction jobs.

Take your head out of your Fox News Talking Points once in a while and you might actually see the forest for the trees.

What they're currently talking about is merely allowing us to go into default

I don't think that's the case -- unless you define "default" as not, for example, paying Sicial Security checks on time versus not paying the interest on our debt to our bondholders. The latter is what is generally viewed as "default" and by many accounts the Treasury will have enough revenues to pay those folks -- as well as many others. What they won't have enough revenues to pay for are many other operations of government which could force, for example, furloughing government employess in the Dept of Eduaction or delaying Social Security checks. Some might view those outcomes as "bad" but they would not be "default."

Bill in Fairfax: The rating agencies have said, point blank, if the US delays payments to ANYONE, then it's considered default. Not just paying bond holders and sos sec recipients. EVERYTHING must be paid or we are defaulting. There is NO way of parsing out of this.

AM: Here’s an alternate take on your position on the 14th (Bold italics are mine):

Garrett Epps, a law professor and former reporter, seems to be the first one to write about this idea earlier this year:

Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment states, at its outset, that “[t]he validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” This section was inserted into the Amendment because of a very real concern that Southern political leaders, and their Northern allies, would gain the upper hand in Congress in the 1866 or 1868 elections and vote to repudiate the national debt.

The Lincoln administration had borrowed freely to finance the war machine. As Reconstruction dawned, white Southerners complained bitterly that they would now be taxed to repay the funds that had been borrowed to defeat their cause. “What, ruin us, and then make us help pay the cost of our own whipping?” one asked a Northern journalist in 1865. “I reckon not.”

Southerners were used to having their way in Congress–they had dominated the institution from 1787 until secession in 1861–and many believed that when their representatives arrived in House and Senate, they would be able to tear up the nation’s IOUs.

Section Four was the response; its language is extraordinary. First, it does not simply say that the national debt must be paid; it says that its “validity … shall not be questioned.” Only one other section of the Constitution–the Thirteenth Amendment‘s proclamation that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”–is as unqualified and sweeping.

Second, it suggests a broad definition of the national debt: “…including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion.”

From this language, it’s not hard to argue that the Constitution places both payments on the debt and payments owed to groups like Social Security recipients–pensioners, that is–above the vagaries of Congressional politics. These debts have to be paid, the argument would be, in full, on time, without question. If Congress won’t pay them, then the executive must.

Previously, Epps had outlined what he believed Section Four authorized the Executive to do in the form of an imaginary speech by President Obama to a Joint Session of Congress:

It says it “shall not be questioned.” The national debt must be paid in full, on time, regardless of any political division within our Congress. That is what the Framers intended: to set the debt obligations of our country beyond the reach of Congressional meddling. Those obligations will not be questioned as long as I am president of the United States.This action requires me to authorize borrowing that is not in conformity with the debt-limit statute. But no congressional statute can command or permit our government to violate the Constitution. I find the debt limit, to the extent that it could be construed to require national default on any obligation of our nation, to be in the words of the great chief justice John Marshall, repugnant to the Constitution and thus void.

In other words, Epps argues, despite the clear language of the debt ceiling statute that the Federal Government cannot borrow above the statutory limit without Congressional authority, that the President has the authority to order the Treasury Department to issue new debt in order to ensure that the national debt is not repudiated, i.e., that we continue making interest payments on existing bond obligations.

The Supreme Court seems to have ruled on Section Four of the 14th Amendment only once since ratification, in the case Perry v. United States 294 U.S. 330 (1935). In that case, the Court was dealing with a lawsuit filed by the holder of a government bond that, when issued, had provided that principal and interest would be paid “in United States gold coin of the present standard of value.” In 1933, only a month after entering office FDR issued Executive Order 6102, which forbid the “Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States.” The Executive Order also forbid Americans from owning monetary gold, and required the surrender of the same to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for U.S. currency at the exchange rate of $ 20.67 per ounce. Soon after, several lawsuits were filed, including the Perry case.

While the Court ultimately rule in favor of the government, finding Congressional power over money to be plenary, it said the following about Congressional action that impaired U.S. debt obligations:

The Fourteenth Amendment, in its fourth section, explicitly declares: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, . . . shall not be questioned.” While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation. We regard it as confirmatory of a fundamental principle which applies as well to the government bonds in question, and to others duly authorized by the Congress, as to those issued before the Amendment was adopted. Nor can we perceive any reason for not considering the expression “the validity of the public debt” as embracing whatever concerns the integrity of the public obligations.

It’s not much of a statement, admittedly, but it does seem to support Epps’s interpretation of Section Four. The question is, what does it really mean practically?

At the most, I would argue that it means that the United States cannot, constitutionally, default on its debt and that the President would be authorized to take action to prevent that. That doesn’t mean, however, that the President would be authorized to issue new debt without Congressional authorization, because there are other means by which interest on the debt could be paid. For example, the President could tell the Treasury that payment of interest takes priority over all other government obligations and that incoming revenue must be used for that purpose first. If there’s nothing left over for other government expenses, then they won’t be paid. Theoretically, it might authorize incurring new debt, but that authorization would seem to extend only incurring enough debt to pay the interest, and nothing more.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-the-debt-ceiling-unconstitutional/

Bag:

I can't believe that some are actually calling for tax increases under these economic conditions.

And I can't believe that some are demanding big budget cuts that are to lead to layoffs of enormous numbers of government workers that will in turn lead to layoffs of private sector workers after demand for their goods and services drops, leading to yet more private-sector layoffs. The Republicans have already started what could be a new death spiral by blocking funding of the FAA, causing 70,000 workers to be laid off, a large number of which are private sector workers under contract to the government. One idiot teabagger in Congress even introduced a bill to DECREASE the budget ceiling. That's truly beyond belief.

No, this isn't the time for big budget cuts or big tax increases. But some tax increases on the "malefactors of great wealth" (as Teddy Roosevelt called the same sort of miscreants back in his day) that created the economic mess probably would have little effect on the economy because they're busy hoarding their ill-gotten gains rather than doing any hiring or spending that might stimulate the economy.

Mixed Bag -

GDP for the 1st qtr was revised to .4%, down from 1.9%...barely above contraction.

I can't believe that some are actually calling for tax increases under these economic conditions.

That's just begging for another recession.

I can't believe that same are actually calling for an unemployment INCREASE under these economic conditions.

80% of our economy is consumer spending, and the GOP/TP want to INCREASE unemployment by laying off millions of public jobs.

So tell me, Mixed Bag . . . what happens to consumer spending when MILLIONS lose their jobs and no longer have money to spend? What happens to the economy when the portion that represents 80% takes a hit?

You actually want people to believe that making the top 2% pay an extra 3% more in taxes is WORSE than higher unemployment, less consumer spending, and thus less money going to private companies from consumers?

Joe, listen closely.........the current year being spent NOW (FYE 9/30/11) is part of the Continuing Resolution. it allows spending NOW, based on spending form the previous yea'r APPROVED budget. The spending could not be done, FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR, without a CR.

_________________________________________________

So, Barry is asking for $2.4 trillion to cover what he plans to spend between August 2 and September 30, 2011?? (I'm not even sure a hard-core deficit spending addict like him could survive an overdose like that!! LOL!!!) If not, then what part of:

"Will any of that $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 go to pay for the, yet to be approved, 2011-12 federal budget’s $1.5 trillion in deficit spending (for everything from utilities for federal buildings, to paper clips, to avgas for Air Force One, to Medicaid, to WH staff salaries), which, by definition, is FUTURE spending??

And, if you say “no”, then you have to answer the question: How will that 2011-12 $1.5 trillion deficit spending be paid for??"

in my post did you NOT understand??

All-

Raising taxes in an economy tracking along at somewhere between .4% and 1.3% gdp is madness.

I'm certain that...whatever he tells those of you who make up his base...every time President Obama looks at those gdp numbers, he's enormously relieved that he didn't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in January.

@FastMovingCloud- I think you and a lot of other folks to the left of center take "job creation" a bit too literally. While there are a lot of wealthy folks in this country who are the risk takers that start up businesses & directly create jobs, the 1% if typically see vilified by the left are also creating jobs with their wealth. Lets face it, they aren't literally sitting on piles of cash or hoarding it in vaults under their powder room floors. Their wealth is invested, right? There are a whole lot of jobs created in order to manage that wealth- banks don't operate without people. Brokerage firms don't operate without people. The stock market doesn't operate without people. And the people who work for those entities don't do so for free- they have jobs because of other people's investments. Same goes for many service industries. Ask a hair dresser these days if she's still got a job because of her low-earning clients or because of her wealthier clients. I know mine has been hurting for the last few years because a lot of her client base had to cut back and the hair cut once a month became a luxury they could live without. Same for lawn care services. People decided they could spend a few hours a week cutting their own grass instead of paying someone else to do it. Hotels aren't booked up with blue collar vacationers lately, they're lucky to get the business they can out of those who have money to spend. And the wealthy who you feel should be willingly giving more because they won't feel it- watch what happens when they get taxed on their private jets, yachts, etc. The middle class people who have jobs to support those things (the boat builders, mechanics, pilots, marina operators, etc) are going to find themselves out of work in a hurry. While, say, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates might not be directly employing those folks, they have jobs BECAUSE O and Bill can afford the products that their jobs support. Now, those might well be extreme examples, I'm pretty sure you're right, O and Bill wouldn't miss a couple million more in taxes (which won't happen anyway since most of their empires are not coming from standard pay checks like the rest of us working slobs), there are a whole lot of folks that would suddenly find themselves in a much higher tax bracket if the current dems have their way (current top marginal rate doesn't kick in until somewhere around $330k in income, Obama & his buddies want to drop that down to $250k) and THOSE are EXACTLY the people who make the cut backs that effect the jobs you don't want to consider as created by the wealthy.

Why is it that I here Carney say that the Republicans will not compromise and the very next sentence will be that the Boehner's plan will be vetoed. Sounds like hard lines on both sides. I would say that both sides along with most posters to this site need to learn what compromise means because I am pretty sure it does not mean my way is right and yours sucks rocks.

@ Fiesty RedHead,

Your information bears repeating!

Here is some informatio­n about one of the T-tards back ground who is a NO Compromise advocate. Joe Walsh!

Here is the evidence of just how deep the hypocrisy runs with the Tea Party /GOP:

Walsh has been married twice, and has five children. On July 28, 2011, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Walsh's ex-wife, Laura, was suing him for more than $117,000 for neglecting to pay child support payments.

Walsh had told his ex-wife that he did not have the money, but he had loaned $35,000 to his 2010 campaign. Walsh's attorney called the claim "unfounded­", saying that Walsh did not owe "anywhere near that amount."

Note the attorney did NOT say that Joe owed his first wife and Children NOTHING!

The TAX payers have been supporting Joe's Wife and 5 Kids

Joe (Quoting):

At the most, I would argue that it means that the United States cannot, constitutionally, default on its debt and that the President would be authorized to take action to prevent that. That doesn't mean, however, that the President would be authorized to issue new debt without Congressional authorization, because there are other means by which interest on the debt could be paid. For example, the President could tell the Treasury that payment of interest takes priority over all other government obligations and that incoming revenue must be used for that purpose first. If there's nothing left over for other government expenses, then they won't be paid. Theoretically, it might authorize incurring new debt, but that authorization would seem to extend only incurring enough debt to pay the interest, and nothing more.

Joe, I have obviously said it very badly and my apologies for the confusion I have obviously created. I use these terms inartfully because the financial stuff is not really my deal, although the Constitution is. This statement above is EXACTLY what I mean. EXACTLY. Where I might differ slightly with this author is whether the President could issue new debt to pay down principal on existing debt. I think it might be possible because the underlying debt incurred isn't really new. But I'll concede that point for sake of argument. Interest is different because Congress knew when it authorized the original borrowing that interest would accrue.

And to the extent that anyone in Congress tries to argue that the debt ceiling means the interest cannot be paid, then it is unconstitutional. As for the rest, what you said about developing a program to prioritize our obligations is also exactly what I think and tried to say in my own clumsy way yesterday. But no one really wants to talk about that, do they?

So again, my apologies for making you think I was talking about new borrowing that doesn't have to do with existing debt. I was not. But I WAS at least talking about that, which many in Washington don't even seem to understand.

x

The rating agencies have said, point blank, if the US delays payments to ANYONE, then it's considered default.

I don't think that's the case, if you think so then provide the documentation to prove it.

In fact, what S&P said on July 14 is this:

"We still believe that the risk of a payment default on U.S. debt obligations as a result of not raising the debt ceiling is small, though increasing." In context, that statement clearly refers to "scheduled debt service payments on the U.S.' market debt…" and NOT on such things as possible delays in sending out Social Security checks. By all means read page 2 in the link below.

A wise man once said: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your "facts" are wrong – a common malady of the left on this board.

http://www.getliberty.org/files/SP20110714.pdf

So, Barry is asking for $2.4 trillion to cover what he plans to spend between August 2 and September 30, 2011?? (I'm not even sure a hard-core deficit spending addict like him could survive an overdose like that!! LOL!!!) If not, then what part of:

"Will any of that $2.4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 go to pay for the, yet to be approved, 2011-12 federal budget’s $1.5 trillion in deficit spending (for everything from utilities for federal buildings, to paper clips, to avgas for Air Force One, to Medicaid, to WH staff salaries), which, by definition, is FUTURE spending??

And, if you say “no”, then you have to answer the question: How will that 2011-12 $1.5 trillion deficit spending be paid for??"

in my post did you NOT understand??

Joe, the $2.4 Trillion is for the rest of this fiscal year, including interest payments/refinancing current debt, and those expenses (prior to 9/30/11) that need to be paid, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicade reimbursements, vendors, Govt employees, etc., etc.

None of the $2.4 Trillion is going to be used for FY beginning 10/1/11. Those expenses, budgeted for and approved (with or without a CR) appropriated and funded, will be paid from NEW funds.

If Republicans can get their way, there wouldn't be any deficit in FY 12, and all the shortfall would be cut from government spending. That would mean huge layoffs of middle class Govt workers, contractors, etc., and they would not spend. that would start the snowball again, contracting the economy, just at the worst time it could happen. I know that runs a little counter to what you might think (cutting spending will help the economy), but in a downturn (as in the Depression) austerity measures were taken, only making the economy worse and extending the Depression.

You're wrong, cannibal. The $2.4 trillion is not JUST for the rest of this fiscal year, it's for FY12, as well...until after the 2012 elections...sound familiar now????

Other than that, I agree with you 100%, however.

aquatone: Wrong. The spending for FY 12 hasn't even been approved yet. We don't know if there will even be a deficit yet. So you can't say the $2.4 Trillion will be used for FY12

Joe, I've copied something from the NY Times (and remember that the rating agencies are paranoid over the failure to catch the 2008 financial collapse, so they're sure to be extra careful this time) :

Some analysts argue that as long as the nation continues making its payments on the national debt, it will not be in default. The Treasury disputes that, arguing that "adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the United States to stand behind its commitments."

Q. What could a default mean for the economy?

A. It could be bad, on several levels. A default is typically a decision not to pay government bondholders back, in part or in full, but the rating agencies have said they might consider the United States in default if it fails to pay other creditors like government vendors. If the federal government interrupts payments, whether to Social Security recipients or contractors, those people will then have less money to spend, and the economy will slow down. And if the United States defaults on its debt, there is a risk that the investors could demand a higher interest rate.

The Repbulicans are trying to do what they said they would do, and that's what got them elected. I guess the Democrats and their followers are just not used to people ACTUALLY doing what the said they would, rein in spending and limit government.

Let the Dem's have their way. Obama's tantrums are getting embarrassing. Then when we are in an even deeper mess come 2013, they'll have only themselves to blame. All Obama cares about is getting to 2013. All else be damned. He doesn't want the money tree pruned. He'll keep the peons pacified with more speeches, lies and grandious fairy tales. It's all about him, didn't you know that??

Mixed Bag -

Raising taxes in an economy tracking along at somewhere between .4% and 1.3% gdp is madness.

I'm certain that...whatever he tells those of you who make up his base...every time President Obama looks at those gdp numbers, he's enormously relieved that he didn't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in January.

You didn't answer the question . . . What's wrong? Are you scarred to answer?

I will ask again. Do you honestly believe that raising unemployment and thus reducing consumer spending in a bad economy is a good thing? You believe that this is the answer? You actually believe that INCREASING unemployment will fix our economy?

Thoughts from Cali:

You are exactly right. We can't "cut" our way to prosperity either.

Thoughts from Cali-

Not scared at all.

I don't accept the premise of your question.

It's a silly non-sequitur.

You'll have to bring something better than that to the table.

Anyway...

Did President Obama make a mistake extending all of the Bush tax cuts, Cali?

Given today's economic data?

You aren't scared to answer...are you?

I think our President actually got that one exactly right.

I commend him for that, if nothing else.

Again...

How about you?

Mixed Bag:

In a word, Yes. You could argue it "saved" some jobs, but Republicans don't believe in that, and, even if it did, unemployment went from 9.1% to 9.2%, so it's unlikely it saved many jobs.

StC-

So you favor tax increases in an economy with a growth rate so low that it'll take little to push it into a double-dip recession.

President Obama and I disagree with you.

Take it up with him.

Maybe he'll listen to such nonsense.

I doubt it.

He has no intention of raising taxes in the near future...whatever he tells people like you.

Watch what he does (like last December, for example)...

NOT what he says.

So again, my apologies for making you think I was talking about new borrowing that doesn't have to do with existing debt. I was not. But I WAS at least talking about that, which many in Washington don't even seem to understand.

____________________________________

No apologies necessary. As long as we are in agreement that Barry is not authorized by the 14th to issue US public debt in excess of the current Congressionally approved and Presidentially-signed debt ceiling law to pay for anything other than interest on that debt. Agreed?

If so, then would you tell your FR libsrus friends they are wrong on the 14th if they believe that the (Barry) Imperial Presidency that gives him the right to issue US public debt for whatever nonsense he wants to waste it on.??

Thanks to Bill for pointing us DIRECTLY at the section indicating S&P is concerned about the OVERALL situation surrounding the debt ceiling, and not merely payment of Treasury securities as he insists;

· Standard & Poor's uses CreditWatch to indicate a substantial likelihood
of it taking a rating action within the next 90 days, or in response to
events presenting significant uncertainty to the creditworthiness of an
issuer. Today's CreditWatch placement signals our view that, owing to the
dynamics of the political debate on the debt ceiling, there is at least a
one-in-two likelihood that we could lower the long-term rating on the
U.S. within the next 90 days. We have also placed our short-term rating
on the U.S. on CreditWatch negative, reflecting our view that the current
situation presents such significant uncertainty to the U.S.'
creditworthiness.
· Since we revised the outlook on our 'AAA' long-term rating to negative
from stable on April 18, 2011, the political debate about the U.S.'
fiscal stance and the related issue of the U.S. government debt ceiling
has, in our view, only become more entangled. Despite months of
negotiations, the two sides remain at odds on fundamental fiscal policy
issues. Consequently, we believe there is an increasing risk of a
substantial policy stalemate enduring beyond any near-term agreement to
raise the debt ceiling.

Of course, to Conservatives no one matters but Wall Street, so they aren't too concerned about what might happen to anyone else.

Joe, the $2.4 Trillion is for the rest of this fiscal year, including interest payments/refinancing current debt, and those expenses (prior to 9/30/11) that need to be paid, including Social Security, Medicare/Medicade reimbursements, vendors, Govt employees, etc., etc.

None of the $2.4 Trillion is going to be used for FY beginning 10/1/11. Those expenses, budgeted for and approved (with or without a CR) appropriated and funded, will be paid from NEW funds

__________________________________

If you believe that BS, you need to change your name to "stop the cannibis".

If what you claim is true, why is Barry insisting on a debt ceiling that will carry the govt through the end of 2012??

Moron.

Mixed Bag -

How is that silly? The GOP/TP has gone on the record numerous times DEMANDING that we "cut" government jobs with the rationale being that the government is "too big" and we need to "cut spending". I have even seen TP members DEMAND that we cut entire government agencies.

So it comes down to two principles: The Dems want some cuts, but not job cuts, and an increase in taxes. The GOP/TP wants only cuts, including job cuts, and more cuts to taxes which will require additional government cuts, including jobs.

Thus, the GOP/TP way would increase unemployment and lower taxes. So again (third time now), why do you believe that increasing unemployment will fix our economy?

To your question: YES, he did make a mistake extending the Bush tax cuts. The only thing that accomplished was keeping the deficit at it's current level. (Because the deficit is a component of BOTH spending and revenue. You can not ignore one side when looking that the reasons for it's current size.)

This did NOT save jobs for a number of reasons: (1) Companies have been hording money, and have more than enough funds to keep current employment levels through a 3% increase in taxes. (2) Companies base hiring needs on demand and sales of their product, not tax rates. You can not tell me that a company with high demand will cut-back their staff, and thus sell LESS, because of a 3% increase. (3) The "small business" claim that most GOP/TPers make is that small business are the ones who will hire/fire based on the tax rate. This argument ignores the fact that most small business today are internet-based, run by a single person. These small businesses will NOT hire additional people because they don't need to. You can successfully run a small online business or blog alone, and never need to hire anyone else. I know numerous people who do this, and they admit that they will NOT hire anyone else, regardless of tax rates, because they do not need to. Welcome to 2011, the internet is now the leading medium for business. (4)GOP.com, Michelle Bachman, Boehner, and countless other Republicans claimed that "companies are waiting to hire based on the extension of the Bush tax cuts" and "tax cuts create jobs" . . . No jobs were created upon the extension, and unemployment actually went up. After realizing this data, the GOP quickly twisted their own words and now say that the extension prevented further job loss. There is ZERO data to support this, and I can still pull up the GOP.com page which states that "tax cuts create jobs". (5) Finally, and most importantly, making the argument that an event you theorize might occur, like more lay-offs, but does NOT happen, is not grounds for an accurate cause and effect relationship. How do you know that the Obama stimulus is not the cause? You don't know . . . but you claim that your theory was the cause, and discount any other option. The truth is that there are many possibilities, and no one will know the exact reason, but you choose to ignore all other possibilities and ONLY support your own theory.

Look at that, I answered your question after you only asked me once. And I even provided supporting arguments for why I feel this way. Yet I am still waiting for your answer, after asking for a 3rd time.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

You people are all delusional. Do you really think any of these negotiations are going to fix our economy?

Come on, I hope you have more intelligence than that. All this will do is extend the inevitable collapse we MUST go through.

From related MSNBC articles:

The Commerce Department's first estimate of second quarter growth, released Friday, came in at a 1.3 percent rate, much lower than the consensus estimate of around 1.8 percent.

What is more appalling, the fact that our growth was 1.3% or that at best we were hoping for 1.8%? And to make it even worse:

What's more, first-quarter output was sharply revised down to a 0.4 percent pace from 1.9 percent.

At this point, with next month’s revision, this administration may end up with a negative growth rate!

This is pathetic. It doesn't matter what either useless political party, Democrat or Republican, does. If anything, by these numbers, another $2.4 TRILLION increase in our debt ceiling will just drag the uncertainty down even more.

Face it, all of the government interventions were a bust. TARP has just allowed the banks to get richer and bonuses are back to supersonic levels and lending is still stagnant. The $timulu$ was an even bigger disaster. Nearly a TRILLION Dollars and we have 9.2 unemployment, nearly 17% in under/unemployment. Quantitative Easing I and II were absolute busts other than for the Wall Street traders and speculators as interest rates were kept artificially low and inflation is misrepresented. For those of you geniuses who believe we should have had a BIGGER $timulu$, you're delusional. With a true under/unemployment of 17% this means nearly 25 MILLION Americans are jobless. if all this money only "created or saved" 2 million jobs we would need another $10 TRILLION Dollars to get unemployment down to just 6-7%. And then what?

In the 1960's we had an economy powered by 53% domestic exportable manufacturing, today it is 9%. We are an 80% consumption/service sector economy today. Show me a single country with this type of economy that has ever created the wealth, prosperity and standard of living that we are accustomed to. You can't. It doesn't exist and it never will. In order to have consumption you need money. To have money you need a job. In order to have a job you need long term stable exportable industries that will bring NEW MONEY in from abroad that we can use to restore our savings accounts and the Treasury can use to pay off our mountain of debt. We are being told we are in a "jobless recovery". What does that even mean? We are in a recoveryless recovery!

We CAN'T export entitlements. We CAN'T export social service programs. We CAN'T export road and bridge building infrastructure projects. We CAN'T export 1/6th of our economy called Obamacare. We need long term sustainable exportable manufacturing industries to return to our soil. This will never happen as we keep raising our DEBT CEILING requiring more and more of OUR tax dollars to pay it off. If any of you truly believe that either the Republicans or Democrats plan will mandate that any cuts in spending, any savings or increased tax revenues will go to repay our debt you're living in Liberal La-La Land. It has never happened and it will never happen. Raising the Debt Ceiling is just another blank check book for the criminals on both sides of the aisle to spend on their unsustainable government programs and their cronyism to all the fundraisers and campaign bundlers.

For nearly 2 years Obama spent his political capital on Obamacare. We still have no idea what's really in it as thousands of pages of regulations and rules are being written. $500 BILLION dollars in Medicare waste, fraud and abuse continues. Of course Obama said they will attack this problem, just like every president before him has. IT STILL EXISTS! The Financial Reform package is doing NOTHING for the financial industry. It is abusing the system without resistance. The housing collapse continues, NINJA loans are still being granted and mortgage robo-signings are still happening. Obama promised to review regulations. The GAO recently published a report showing $100-$200 BILLION Dollars in redundant expenses because we have hundreds of agencies and Departments that don’t know what the others are doing.

So go ahead. Bitch and complain about what Hairy Reed or Tammy Faye Boehner is doing. IT DOESN'T MATTER. We don't have the economic engine to pull us out of this Depression/Recession. The only good thing out of all of this is the fact that kids can live at home until they're 27 under their parent’s health care. They certainly won't be finding any jobs after college.

This is the shame of our incompetent and unsustainable government.

StC-

So you favor tax increases in an economy with a growth rate so low that it'll take little to push it into a double-dip recession.

President Obama and I disagree with you.

Take it up with him.

Maybe he'll listen to such nonsense.

I doubt it.

He has no intention of raising taxes in the near future...whatever he tells people like you.

Watch what he does (like last December, for example)...

NOT what he says.

Mixed Bag: Remember, Obama went along with extending the tax cuts for the rich because the Republicans would NOT extend unemployment benefits, relief from payroll taxes for the Middle Class, and aid to the States unless the Bush tax cuts for the rich were extended (we see how well that worked, even though we were told by speaker boehner that they would be "the best thing we could do for job creation".

If i had to choose between giving the middle class money, or the rich, I would take the middle class in a heart beat. Remember, consumer spending makes up 80% of the puchasing power in the US.

Democrats want a "balance" of tax revenues and spending cuts. 3 to 1 custs vs revenues. Why should EVERYONE except the rich help fix things? In fact, companies are now saying they would rather have certainty rather than tax cuts. They really need CUSTOMERS, not tax cuts. They say there's no certainty in DEMAND. Why are the rich so sacred to Republicans? They can't sell without customers.

Cali-

Again, your question sets up a false premise...in effect, a non-sequitur.

The GOP does not insist only on spending cuts.

In fact, the GOP (Speaker Boehner) agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases in his talks with President Obama...through an overhaul of the existing tax code.

President Obama and the White House have all but acknowledged this...while all but conceding that the President should have accepted Boehner's offer, instead of insisting on $400 billion in additional revenue in the form of tax increases.

I've addressed your question yet again, with even more specificity, Cali.

The problem is the nonsensical nature of your question...not my response to it.

StC-

Then I suggest you join me in urging the President to embrace the Bowles-Simpson debt commission Plan.

It has exactly the "balance" we both desire in terms of the ratio of spending decreases to revenue increases.

Sure...it's true that the Democratic House Progressive Caucus and the Tea Party Republicans will bitterly oppose such a solution.

But...you and I aren't ideologues, are we?

If Coburn and Durbin can agree on Bowles-Simpson...you and I ought to be able to.

Welcome aboard, pal!

Now...you haven't seen the President around here, have you?

In fact, the GOP (Speaker Boehner) agreed to $800 billion in revenue increases in his talks with President Obama...through an overhaul of the existing tax code.

Sure . . . if you would like to ignore the last 2 years of GOP/TP members SCREAMING about only cuts.

So what you are saying is that 2 years of madness, right-wing extremists yelling to "shut the government down", socialist claims, the "rich create jobs" mantra, demands for the complete removal of agencies that go against their social agenda, and every other ridiculous talking point . . . 2 full years of that, and we are supposed to forget about it all?

I am supposed to forget ALL of that because Boehner, realizing that polls do not favor his stance, finally caved and admitted that maybe we also need to address revenue? Boehner FINALLY realized that BOTH cuts and revenue need to be addressed (something Dems have been saying for 2 mother-f**king years) . . . Boehner FINALLY realizes that, and I am supposed to forget about 2 years of psychotic behavior from the right?

On top of that, not everyone in the GOP/TP camp agree with him. Remember, he yelled at them to get "their asses in line" . . . McCain called the TPers idiots . . . they showed a video clip which basically pointed out that the TP resembles a psychotic lunatic with a one-track mind in a movie.

So yes, Boehner FINALLY realizes that we need to address revenue as well. I commend him for that. But he still can not get the full GOP/TP of Fox News to agree with him, and he still can not control his party.

Making the argument that ONE MAN in the entire GOP/TP corner "gets it" does not negate the fact that the rest of the GOP/TP still want massive cuts . . . including mass lay-offs . . . to fix the economy.

Well s**t, it only took us 2 years to finally convince ONE guy that we need to look at the whole picture and not just one side of the deficit . . . at that rate, we should be done debating and ready for actual changes by, ohhhhhhh . . . I don't know . . . about 400 years.

As I suggested to StC...

"If Coburn and Durbin can agree on Bowles-Simpson...you and I ought to be able to."

There's still room for both of us...even if President Obama jumps in too, Cali.

Yes, Mixed Bag. I've written e-mails and called all of the House leaders, the President's office and all my Representatives that the Gang-of 6 solution, or Bowles-Simpson is the way to go.

Obama was ready to compromise with Boehner, and I think, still would (Jay Carney said so). But, if you remember, Boehner left and said he would work it out with the Senate leaders. What was Obama supposed to do? Bully his way back in? It would have made matters worse. I think Obama is really trying to do what's best for the country. He's trying to let Republicans save face (despite their huge error in signing a no-tax pledge). Even Grover Norquist is saying letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not be breaking that pledge.

Well I can agree to the Bowles-Simpson plan as well . . . but it's not us I am worried about, it's the people yelling "hold the line."

The false moral equivalency that both the Democrats and the Tea Party are equally to blame is absurd in the extreme. The Democrats compromised and compromised to such an extent that they alienated their base and made Obama's reelection by the same questionable at best and they did this knowing this was and could be the case and owning it! The Tea Party Freshman on the other hand and in the words of a former Reagan advisor are and I quote, "Either stupid, lazy, crazy or craven cowards"! My question is... what electorate votes time and time again for the likes of Louie Gohmert and expects a reasonable, rational, sane and inteligent approach to Government!

Astonishing, Cali and StC...

We've been standing toe-to-toe for hours, throwing body blows.

After all of that...

Each of us supports Bowles-Simpson.

They're making this WAY too hard.

ALL of them.

What's wrong with this picture?

xoxoxoxoxo

They're making this WAY too hard.

ALL of them.

What's wrong with this picture?

I sometimes get the feeling that in Congress, it's like an immature argument where it's all about pride. You have to oppose anything that the other party wants and proposes . . . even if it's something you also want.

It's like having a psycho girlfriend who screams and cries that you never buy her flowers. But when you go out and buy them, and she says "Well I don't want them now."

For once Cali, I do agree with you. Enough of this BS and enough of these professional politicians waring more for their party rather than for the population.

These guys have been aware of the issue all year; why wait until the last minute to discuss and fix the problem? All they are doing now is posturing for their party, their president and more importantly their own image and re-election. Time to remove the Progressive and Republican professionals from office, replacing them with new blood that can move forward, and who do understand to whom they report.

But then again Cali, look at what has happened in our state - the dysfunction began here and continues with the need to spend, the need to posture and the need to get reelected while accomplishing nothing.

Careful, Cali-

"...psycho girlfriend..."?

The feminists are going to jump down your throat.

As the venerable Dick Enberg would say:

"Oh my!"

Anyway...

Uhhh...

I can't agree.

You insensitive pig!

But then again Cali, look at what has happened in our state - the dysfunction began here and continues with the need to spend, the need to posture and the need to get reelected while accomplishing nothing.

True, although we should do to Congress what our controller did to our legislators . . . you can't agree, you don't get paid.

Obama’s approval numbers hit all-time low

"Just 40 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president. That is down three percentage points from Thursday. 50 percent say they do not approve of the job he is doing.

Just 41 percent of the public said they approved of the way Obama was handling the debt-ceiling negotiations, while 52 percent disapproved, according to another Gallup poll released Thursday.

Obama has also lost ground against a generic Republican challenger — getting 41 percent of the vote when matched with an unnamed Republican who polled 40 percent.

Obama’s approval rating is below that of former President Bill Clinton’s lowest approval rating during the government shutdowns of 1995."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approval-numbers-hit-time-low-185402373.html

What a freaking disaster.

Wow Obama's approval at 40%... that's still nearly twice as much as the Republicans in congress at 25%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

People are sick and tired of the Republican politics. The Republican approval rating now is just about where the Democrats rating was before the election and we know what happened in that election. I guess a lot of people are now sorry they voted the Republicans in office.

Congressional Job Approval Under 20%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

President Obama approval at 44.9%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Just found the latest on congressional rating and at 44.9% approval Obama is doing great. Congress has a 6% approval.

http://politicons.net/ouch%E2%80%A6-congress-approval-rating-6/

Cali,

Yep, the Democrats didn't get paid, Moonbeam vetoed their phony smoke and mirrors budget attempt, and they attempted to sue for pay and per diem. Thank goodness the Comptroller, also a Dem, has the cajones to say NO.

NO. Now that's a simple word used by the Senate Democrats today!

Larry-(insert all the numbers here)

I guess a lot of people are now sorry they voted the Republicans in office.

On the contrary Larry, most are relieved that they kept their word to attempt to reduce the deficit.

Little did they know that the Dems have NO INTENTION of doing so. NONE.

I haven't read a single supporter of Obama on this whole page that has voiced real concern for the deficit. Only a bunch of mindless insults.

BTW - The folks that voted the Reps in would have no problem voting in Dems if they were sincerely interested in dealing with our addiction to entitlement spending instead of attempting to redistribute our hard-earned wages to immigrants and gimmee gimmee lazy butts.

j1g, that's just nonsense. Almost every one of the Lib regulars here has stated very clearly that we believe the deficit needs to be brought under control through a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.

Don't let facts get in the way of your Conservative talking points.

cannibal, I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong, again, and it couldn't be any more obvious. We don't HAVE to have a final FY12 budget to know that we are going to run a deficit. The sticking points between the left and right are all related to how much to cut and thus how much to lift the debt ceiling. The tea party/GOP wants about a trillion cut and about a trillion added to the debt ceiling...which would just get us through the end of the calendar year, at which point the country would have to go through this whole episode again. Reid and the Dems want 2.4 trillion, which would get us at least through through FY12 and the 2012 elections, deficit-wise. You don't have to believe that if you don't want to, or even acknowledge it, but it's still the simple truth. Just the way it is. If you disagree, fine, but you might try explaining why if you want to get anywhere with me.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Agreed... I made Altogether a 'too hasty' post....

I should have said that Obama doesn't intend to lower the deficit....

The (Obama) cuts include $1.2 trillion from across a range of hundreds of government programs and $1 trillion in savings assumed to derive from the end of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The legislation also assumes creation of a special joint congressional committee to recommend additional savings with a guaranteed vote by Congress by the end of 2011.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20110725&id=13990027

More Obama smoke and mirrors....amost 1/2 the "cut" is an IOU for future withdrawal from Afghanistan & Iraq (as we creep into Egypt)!!! What a farce....he couldn't even KEEP that promise unless he were re-elected.

The man is a complete joke.

He needs the $$ so so bad in order to buy his re-election...another blank check and we're NOT falling for it (again)! It seems the only way the Senate will back any kind of budget is as long as it doesn't cover a REAL reduction in spending!

And future debt projections for the Bush tax cuts were based on them expiring in 2010...the budget has been smoke and mirrors ever since then.

So much for Republicans being good fiscal stewards.

The TEANUTS are destroying our economy to make the DEMS look bad so they regain power, Is this sick or what.

Hey NavyBoy,

I happened to look at my bank account online today and noticed my VA Disability Check was deposited into my account, along with my wife's VA Disability check. I emailed my brother the BN Commander, and found that his check was also deposited into his account.

Feeling more concerned, I contacted my parents to learn that their SS Checks were also deposited into their accounts.

WooHoo, what a game Barry O played with the voting population! So NavyBoy, how do you calculate this happening? Just another lie from the big guy you have an orgasm for every time his name is mentioned?

Now, how do you equate the Reid proposal with the Bohener proposal? And what about Handsome Harry Reid tabling the House bill, rather than having an up/down vote on it. Wow, McConnell was there and asked for this, but the liberal news media stated that the GOP would filibuster it. What a lie NavyBoy!

And what is the current poll ratings for your hero Barry O? Sound to me like your life may be changing soon.

And please NavyBoy, please share with the group just how you received your disability. Mine was related to three hearts during ground combat. Fall down in the O Club did ya? I hope not. And I hope it is not stolen valor, for I cannot stomach pigs who talk while not actually being in the game.

Haven't checked your calendar yet, have you hunky? It isn't even August yet, let alone 8/2, the projected deadline.

So yes, we can still pay the bills. If Conservatives continue to block any progress we'll see all heck break loose by midweek.

LouisJ..

Grandma gets her Social Security check. The SS trust fund has over $10 billion in assets, more than enough to cover payments for a while. It's just not true to say anything different.

Of all the people that will be affected by a default...seniors will feel it the least.

So please stop scaring people with Grandma doesn't get a check.

Thanks.

Ira ~ Don't tell me that you're counting those Treasury Notes as "assets"?

Albany Joe would be very surprised to hear that. He thinks it's debt, and doggone it, it doesn't matter how that debt is incurred -- someone's grandmother is going to have to pay for it.

Sheesh.

p.s. When bonds go higher, then wouldn't SS recipients stand to make even more off those assets that the SS Trust Fund is currently holding?

Brother, if anyone is staking their day on a thought presented by me, they really need to re-evaluate how they look at life. And that is definitely a problem these days, folks getting worked up by someone they have never seen or know. The power of persuasion through the 'internets'... man that's funny.

Anna Molly..

The SS Trust has about $10 trillion in assets which includes about $2.6 in inter-governmental debt...the Treasuries they have as collateral. There is more than enough money to pay benefits for at least a month or possibly more. If this drags out longer...yep..we need to cut the size of the benefits sent.

If yields rise, the market value of the Treasuries will increase which sweetens the post. Also higher yield T Bills will also increase the fund as interest income increases.

PS...Read you posts on the 14th Amendment this morning. Got 2 staff members working on a rebuttal. LOL. I'm a financial services expert...taxes...but I loved your responses and arguments. You win...

Wanna argue about the IRC code...I know A little more about that!

Can't President Obama just send in the Navy Seals to raise the debt limit? I don't care about "process" anymore, I just want him to step in and get it raised without Congress.

Ira, he's a loyal Obama worshipper. It was OBAMA who said he could not guarantee those checks would go out.

It was a blatant lie- kind of like the lies he told about his dying mother- but his sycophants will keep repeating it, over and over, even when there is proof that it is not true.

Did you see the GDP numbers today? First quarter growth revised down to 0.4%. This number was NOT impacted by supply chain disruptions due to the Japanese situation, by the way. Quarter four revised downward, too, so it kind of puts the new, weak, number of 1.3% GDP growth into context, does it not?

I'm pretty sure it will turn out to be negative, when all is said and done.

The helium has gone out of the Hope balloon, and the change turned out to be disaster.

No Jo..

Commented on the 1.3% second quarter growth in my post below....stagnation....stalled.

Add the jobs numbers yesterday and we are just inches from falling back into a recession or worse.

'Take a trillion dollars out of the economy now as the Boehner and Reid suggest without adding revenues and you are guaranteed another Grand Recession.

This debt ceiling crisis is diverting attention from the needs of the country and needs to be ended and not discussed again until this very fragile economy shows some signs of recovery.

Ira:

Wanna argue about the IRC code...I know A little more about that!

LoL Bring it on. The guy in the office next to mine is an expert on that.

Problem is, I can seldom understand anything he says. You, I understand perfectly, even when I don't agree. And thank you for the SS explanation. I don't like it, but I understand it.

;-)

You're not to bright are you Amy?

No Joe,

This is the Summer of Recovery Part II. You didn't know? Wait until next year, see what they call it.

Two things, Ira-

Government spending is impeding growth. It always does, and always will. That is why so many of us raised a cry when Obama insisted on using a Keynesian economic model- we knew the outcome. Because we had crystal balls? No- because we had the data from every single example of its use. We are now reaping the dubious rewards of someone who never let the facts get in the way.

Second, growth would improve immediately if all the new government regulations- i.e., cap a and trade, (pushed through the back door of the EPA on Christmas Eve), and HCR were rescinded; the NLRB were not so aggressively thwarting business expansion, and firms were not so intimidated by a government completely put of control.

Don't even get me started on the corruption of giving billions of taxpayer dollars to donors to create jobs in China.

The ObamA administration is peopled by those whose belief in Keynes is akin to a child's belief in Santa Claus, and those whose cynical attachment to government corruption is breathtaking in its contempt for the rule of law, both of whom are aided by a sycophantic media that could not report a dead body on the lawn of the White House if Obama told them it was a rose bush.

You want growth? Get rid of the idiot in the White House. Get him to resign./p>

amy that would be anarchy, Obama wants socialism.

Paul,

Why do you act like such a butt w!pe? Remember, this debt problem is owned by W. Bush and the Republicans. Fact are facts.

I don't care who owns it, do something about it, quit spending, make adjustments!

What disgusts me is the Dems haven't come up with even one plan, not the Senate, not the President, nothing! And yet they spend their time screaming total lies about the Repub bills and refusing to vote on any of them. Who is at blame here, really?

Until you can come up with a written bill and vote on it, there is absolutely NO ROOM TO COMPLAIN!

The US GDP for Q1 has been adjusted downward today from a sad 1.9% to a dismal 0.4%. Who cooked those books? The US GDP for Q2 today is reported at 1.3%. In my view, there is no recovery in this economy despite our government throwing nearly $450 billion around during this period, the most 'spend to grow' money of all Nations.

US spending is ending because she is broke, and the spending is doing harm, not good.

Germany today reported all-time record consumer spending, and a 6.3% GDP. It is interesting that Germany throws the least amount of money at her economy of any Nation.

Does anyone know the actual GDP number that indicates a recession? I know that a recession is called a recession when the GDP dips below a specific number. I also know that a depression is an even lower GDP number. I'm just not sure of the actual numbers the government uses to declare a recession.

I remember sometime last year the government said we wouldn't be having a double dip recession... seems to me we are fastly heading that way. Something also tells me that if we do go deep, this time we will go real deep because of the massive slow downs in durable goods. Construction is not doing well and there are many, many people facing foreclosures still.

I know that a recession is called a recession when the GDP dips below a specific number. Let me add to that, for a specific amount of time.. isn't it 3 months, or is it 2 quarters? I'm having brain lock here... LOL

no joe:

That is why so many of us raised a cry when Obama insisted on using a Keynesian economic model- we knew the outcome.

Huh?

Are you talking about the stimulus? You seem to forget that the President actually took his advice from all those conservative economic minds that he had gathered around him in the wake of the financial meltdown. I recall this specifically because I questioned at the time whether the same ways of thinking that had originally caused the disaster were the only ones he could find to drive the solution.

Less conservative economists complained -- and still do -- that the stimulus wasn't properly targeted, allowed states too much leeway in deciding how to spend the money, and relied so heavily on tax cuts, which are proven not to create jobs.

If it failed, look to your own philosophic house. REAL Keynesianism might have worked.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/proposal-true-keynesian-economic-stimulus

What is Keynesian economics? In a nutshell, Keynesian economics is a political economic philosophy that believes that government fiscal and monetary policy can help close any output (GDP) gap in the economy - meaning recession/depression. The focus of Keynesian economics is on FULL EMPLOYMENT and SHARED PROSPERITY.

What we are seeing today in the form of various stimulus plans already enacted and proposed is NOT Keynesian economics. It is a bastardized version that helps those who needed it the least. EP has documented the weaknesses of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (here and here) and now we are hearing reports of the "bipartisan" boondoggle that is heading our way in the form a new "jobs bill". It won't work. Why?

Tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

It's the structure of the tax break - it is in the form of a tax credit. This isn't rocket science. Businesses, particularly small businesses, need cash flow and they need it NOW. A tax credit won't cut it.

WE NEED TO STIMULATE DEMAND! That means putting money in people’s pocket and doing it on a regular basis as opposed to a one time stimulus check gimmick or tax credits that take effect until tax time.

Now, before you scoff at my source, consider this: My source called it right.

By the way, if you read my post about Rick Perry yesterday, you'll see that HE uses a variation of the Keynesian model in Texas as well. It must have something going for it if so wise a man as Rick Perry sees the utility in it.

But just like what happened on the national level, Perry is being criticized in some quarters for NOT doing it right, and thereby not getting the results that were promised. Look it up on yesterday's Perry thread.

I thought at the time that you might be interested in that. Very instructive.

Brianb:

I've been rather liberal with facetiousness the last few days, so let me preface this by saying I'm very serious with my answer - which is my opinion - to your question: "Does anyone know the actual GDP number that indicates a recession?"

Let me go back a bit in time. Once upon a time we used a measure called GNP - Gross National Product. That's been changed. Once upon a time the government gave us unemployment figures. The bases for those numbers have been altered repeatedly. The CPI - the Consumer Price Index - has also undergone extensive revision. There are many, many other examples. In short, the value of government numbers must be taken with a liberal dose of salt.

The best example in that regard is unemployment. How meaningful is an unemployment rate of 9.2%? If you are unemployed, you are 100% unemployed. Context is everything, and I am loathe to have the government create MY context.

As far as measuring a recession, such a task is almost impossible regardless of your choice of numbers. First and foremost, implicit in the assumption of being "in" or "out" of a recession is the notion that the change in productivity is little more than a hiccup. (Wow, I see the spelling of hiccough has been changed - no small irony in this post.) We expect to return to the same model upon which the "recession" was determined. That model is no longer valid.

The idea of a "jobless recovery" speaks to the fallacy of that notion. The old consumption model is simply no longer viable. Many jobs are not coming back. Some have been off-shored, some computerized, some have been replaced by robotics, etc.

Along with that, there seems to be a creeping realization that we actually have to fund government. We have to pay for programs. It appears that government will not be able to pick up the slack.

At the same time, private enterprise is becoming more and more risk-averse. This has nothing to do with the "uncertainty" straw man. It has everything to do with the fact that the white shirt and wingtip crowd is petrified of investing in unproven technology. The capitalists who invest in solutions to the energy crisis will be the winners, but new power sources, energy storage, and transmission are very risky. In the past, such projects were put on track by progressive government. That isn't happening these days.

There's so much more to this "recession" question, but the bottom line is this: A recession - however that may be defined today - is simply a statistical manipulation that has no practical value.

AM, hate to break it to you, but Summers and Roemer are NOT conservative economist. Neither is Krugman.

And, yes, there were MANY economists telling him that his stimulous was a bad idea, doomed to fail- and, forget "targeting". Moat of it was "targeted" at his major donors.

Brianb, recessions occur when there are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP. There was some revisionist jiggering of numbers in order to declare that the recession had begun in 2007- there were signs the economy was decelerating, but not negative growth. It would have been great if the indicators had resulted in good policy- alas, that did not happen.

Facts are facts- Keynes, once again, is a proven failure. If it worked according to middle, we would have robust growth. In fact, it NEVER works according to model, because the model is flawed in its assumptions.

Reality trumps theory. "it was too small, it was not targeted, the sun got in my eyes, I tripped over a rock. . .". Lame excuses.

The fact is that it was doomed to fail, as it always does.

amy that would be anarchy, Obama wants socialism.

It's Conservative leaders that want anarchy, and they're doing a great job of creating it. Unlike the Conservative meme that responsible governance is "socialism" there's actual history behind this one. When David Koch ran for VP in 1980 on the Libertarian ticket with a hand-picked presidential candidate his approach was referred to as "Anarcho-Capitalism."

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had a considerable vogue in the West where it has helped put the role of the State back on the political agenda. It has become a major ideological challenge to the dominant liberalism which sees a role for government in the protection of property. The anarcho-capitalists would like to dismantle government and allow complete laissez-faire in the economy. Its adherents propose that all public services be turned over to private entrepreneurs, even public spaces like town halls, streets and parks. Free market capitalism, they insist, is hindered not enhanced by the State.

Anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow private interest will translate itself into public good rather than public squalor. They are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the support of positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be enough to bring social order.

Anarcho-capitalism has recently had the greatest impact in the United States, where the Libertarian Party has taken it up as the house ideology, and where Republicans like Ronald Reagan wanted to be remembered for cutting taxation and for getting 'the government off peoples' backs'.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html

Once Koch figured out he had no chance of prevailing as a political candidate he and his brother along with like-minded wealthy elites decided to just buy the Republican Party instead. Their success is testified to in the primacy of Ayn Rand within the Conservative movement and language indicating clearly that they value only the wealthy as people of merit.

The writings of AYN RAND, a refugee from the Soviet Union, best represent the intellectual background to the new right-wing libertarianism in the United States. In her The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism (1964), she attempted a philosophical defence of egoism while in her novels she portrayed a superior individual fighting the forces of collectivism, particularly in the form of the State. Her superior individual, driven by a Nietzschean will to power, appears in the guise of a capitalist entrepreneur who is presented as the source of all wealth and creator of all progress. Rand claimed that she had a direct knowledge of objective reality, and her 'Objectivist' movement had a considerable vogue in the sixties. Like most anarcho-capitalists, she is convinced of the truth of her own views, which to others appear mere dogma.

I added my own emphasis to the last sentence in that clip, because it goes to the core of what's made the GOPTP unfit to govern. Because only they see "truth" compromise is failure. Remember, this debt ceiling "crisis" was manufactured by Conservatives. They sought it out. From August of LAST YEAR;

"There's going to be a government shutdown, just like in '95 and '96 but we're going to win it this time and I'll be fightin' on your side," Morris said at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation Conference on Friday in Washington.

Now, that's not exactly campaign trail material, but it's a fascinating glimpse into what Republicans may put into action should they win back control of Congress. Morris' suggestions, memes and talking points frequently end up in GOP campaign materials, so we'll be keeping a close eye on this one to see if Republicans will back up his promise for a government shutdown.

It's also quite interesting given that Morris was a Clinton campaign operative in 1995 and 1996 when the Republicans forced a showdown over government spending. (A gamble which, of course, didn't help them much politically. Clinton was able to win reelection in part by running against the GOP's obstruction.)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/dick-morris-gop-will-shut-down-the-government-again-video.php

So, as Republicans choose self-immolation over responsible governance just remember--elections have consequences.

David Walker said: There's so much more to this "recession" question, but the bottom line is this: A recession - however that may be defined today - is simply a statistical manipulation that has no practical value.

So in otherwords you are stating that in 2011, we've finally reached 1984. The government manipulates what they want you to believe.

Brianb:

That is not at all what I am stating. What I stated is what I stated. However, it would be instructive to note that Orwell's book, 1984, was originally entitled, 1948. The principles that appear in 1984 have been with us for thousands of years. The only thing new about spin doctors, flaks, PR types, propagandists and the like are their names.

Your conclusion appears to be based on the assumption that government is some sort of discrete body that has a will of its own. While it is true that the mess in which we find ourselves is the product of the mismanagement of both parties, I find it hard to conclude that there is some sort of organized conspiracy that is concerned with the manipulation of statistics.

Indeed based on what I see happening in the halls of government, now and for many years passed, I cannot bring myself to believe those people are smart enough to create such a conspiracy.

Joe Walsh (R) IL, gives the real Joe Walsh (guitarist/musician extraordinaire) a bad name.

Joe Walsh should sue Joe Walsh (R) IL for defamation.

Boehner and Joe Walsh (R) IL, should feel proud they have all but guaranteed that the republicans will get their collective asses kicked AGAIN in the upcoming elections. What a useless, self serving, gang of boneheads the Republicans have become.

David Walker said: I cannot bring myself to believe those people are smart enough to create such a conspiracy.

ROFL - now isn't THAT the truth? The reason I was asking about the definition of a recession is because I've heard different things. I know there are a lot of people here with much greater insight into economic matters that I, so I was curious as to what someone had to say about it. It seems to me that based on the GDP numbers, the government declared the last recession to be over, but I'm of the opinion that it was only by a whisper. To me a whisper is someone in a higher authority said it and it has to be true. The media jumped all over it and we are supposed to be in the summer of recovery... yeah right! Not by any standard I've ever seen in my 54 years.

According to the sources I've read, the last great recession was between 1976 and 1979. The quote said that we lost 3.4% of the GDP. The number used during the great depression in the 30's was a loss of 24.7% of GDP. It lasted approximately 3 years. I'm very skeptical of anything coming out of the government these days... with revised numbers thrown at us all the time... who really knows what they are doing?

Sorry Job1, Obama claimed this economy and said he would fix it, remember? He also said the recession ended June 09, remember? What about the Summer of Recovery last year, Remember? As for being called a butt wipe, you must be proud, but I do think you have a little bit of Downs in you though based on your cheerleading on these boards. I'll just call you Corky from now on.

Close the Fed - You are viewing it from only one standpoint. In many republican and independent circles, the republicans are doing the right thing. I wouldn't go around declaring victory just yet. It's very premature. You may be wishing it... but tread lightly, there's a whole other dynamic at force that you aren't seeing... There as many on the right as there are on the left, even though you are of the opinion that the left has the advantage... it's not necessarily true.

I seem to recall not to long ago President Obama and Speaker Boehner had a good deal 4 trillion in cuts and 800 billion in revenue. Unfortunately the lunatic far left wanted more in revenue and the Speaker said no. The blame regardless of which side of the political aisle you are on is both parties. My guess is they go back to the original plan on Monday.

For all those who keep saying that the President will try the 14th Amendment route, it seems that his own in-house advisors say that it would fail because he would be in direct violation of the Constitution. The President cannot raise it on his own, he can make recommendations but the Congress has defined a debt ceiling and only Congress can pass legislation to change the debt ceiling per Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment and Article 1 Section 8.

The fact is, of course, that Congress has enormous powers, the support of which is indispensable to any foreign policy. In the long run, Congress is the body that lays and collects taxes for the common defense, that creates armies and maintains navies, although it does not direct them, that pledges the public credit, that declares war, that defines offenses against the law of nations, that regulates foreign commerce; and it has the further power ''to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper''--that is, which it deems to be such--for carrying into execution not only its own powers but all the powers ''of the government of the United States and of any department or officer thereof.'' Moreover, its laws made ''in pursuance'' of these powers are ''supreme law of the land,'' and the President is bound constitutionally to ''take care that'' they ''be faithfully executed." (findlaw for legal professionals). The last sentence says alot, The President is bound constitutionally to take care that the laws are faithfully executed yet he decides on his own that one is unconstitutional (DOMA), he doesn't have that authority. The law was passed and his job is to defend it regardless. Seems he has falling down on a lot of laws especially in the immigration field. Just my opinion.

Brianb:

Yea and verily it is written: If you laid all the Economists in the world end-to-end, they would not reach a conclusion.

Economics is not a science. I've always believed it should have been called Econology. The foundation of this "science" is based on the notion that trades/tradeoffs are rational. Of course! Of course. You can't get more rational than paying $4.00 for a pet rock. I don't know about you Brian, but I threw away literally thousands of dollars when I was a little boy and I skipped thousands more across many a lake.

Recession, schmrecession! (Say that fast 3 times.) It's bogus. This is about arithmetic. Expenditures cannot exceed revenues forever. That's the long and short of it. I am getting tired of hearing about the "grown-ups in the room". This is about simple arithmetic, about paying bills, getting our budget into balance, and the like. Really and truly, this is far beyond the ken of the Tea Partiers. They just don't get it.

David Walker - I've tried to keep my political leanings totally neutral when it comes to the debt ceiling. There's enough blame to go around 10 times over and it encompasses all of Washington. I won't spend a minute justifying anyone because this damn thing has been building for years. Somewhere along the way it had to come to a head. I guess now is about as good a time as any.

The problem as I see it... politicians do NOT know how to fix it... and if anyone with a little bit of brains tries to step in and come up with a solution (under wraps), you have a senior politician telling them to sit down and mind their place. Its like the people in leadership don't want it fixed. Band-aids will not stop the bleeding when an artery has been severed and those at the top are in bloodlust. I believe we the people have lost control to power hungry greedy ba$+ards.

Obama’s approval numbers hit all-time low

"Just 40 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president. That is down three percentage points from Thursday. 50 percent say they do not approve of the job he is doing.

Just 41 percent of the public said they approved of the way Obama was handling the debt-ceiling negotiations, while 52 percent disapproved, according to another Gallup poll released Thursday.

Obama has also lost ground against a generic Republican challenger — getting 41 percent of the vote when matched with an unnamed Republican who polled 40 percent.

Obama’s approval rating is below that of former President Bill Clinton’s lowest approval rating during the government shutdowns of 1995."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approval-numbers-hit-time-low-185402373.html

What a freaking disaster.

HA HA HA - The clowns are STILL blaming all this on Bush!! Just tooooo much, lol.

A standard Conservative talking point that anyone would blame the situation on GW Bush, one man who will never again hold public office. It's a deliberate attempt to minimize the issue.

The weak economy is in actuality the failure of the entire collection of Conservative economic theories having been implemented on a widespread basis for the last 30 years. It's the entire Republican playbook of deregulation, upward redistribution of wealth, weakening of the social safety net, and Supply Side economics that has failed.

Nice try attempting to confine the blame to GW Bush. It's all of Conservatism that I blame. A generation-long experiment with Laissez-Faire economics has brought us to the brink of ruin and it's past time to be put out to pasture.

No John B.,

I disagree with you. Certainly each previous administration is culpable. Each had a share in the increase of debt. Bush, who the liberals love to deamonize had his increase. What was is, $1.6T? In just over 2 years Barry O spent $5T.

How do you account for that? He was just attempting to combat the recession by spending or investing in the economy? Doesn't wash guy.

Perhaps Barry O needs another slogan for his next campaign. My thought for a new one: Festina lente or in the English - hurry slowly.

Disagree with me if you wish, the numbers don't back you up. First of all, over $12T of our debt is DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to Reagan/Bush41 and Bush43 policies;

"Complete Proof of the $12 Trillion Republican Debt

Just below you can see the calculation and the documentation links for the Reagan-Bushes $12 Trillion ($12,049 Billion) national debt as of September 30, 2010. You can download this as an excel spreadsheet by clicking: Download as XLS.
Their debt has 4 parts, but the bulk of it is calculated from 4 inputs (yellow and tan) that you can check with the color coded links to the treasury at the bottom. This will verify the $3.4 Trillion Reagan-Bush debt and the $6.1 Trillion G.W. Bush debt. Together that's $9.5 Trillion. Now some of G.W. Bush's debt is really interest on the Reagan-Bush debt, so he is not as bad as he looks, and Reagan-Bush are lot worse because of all their interest. You can see that in the graph above.
Interest is calculated on the second sheet (tab at bottom). But you know that 17 years of compound interest on 3.4 Trillion is going to add a lot. So a $12 Trillion total is very believable, and if you want to spend 10 minutes you can check it easily."

http://zfacts.com/p/1170.html

The debt trajectory was nearly vertical when President Obama took office. It takes time to bring that under control even during the best of conditions, and it was far from the best of conditions.

Secondly, even CONSERVATIVE economists agree that the stimulus plan worked;

"We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation."

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf

The plan would have worked better had Conservatives not insisted on having 1/3 of the stimulus be in the least effective category (tax breaks) and had Republicans paid down the debt when we had the chance instead of ballooning it with tax breaks for the last 3 decades.

This "both sides are responsible" mantra is standard procedure any time the American people appear ready to blame the GOP and Conservative movement for the damage they've caused. This time people seem to be connecting the dots. The GOPTP has overplayed their hand.

No, if the checks don't go out it is because Obama decided to pay his buddies and political contributors before he pays our seniors. We know who Obama is loyal to and it is not our seniors.

Rick,

That is the dumbest statement I heard all day.

Obama and Geitner make the decision on who gets paid in what order and yet it's the republican's fault that they chose to cut off Granny and our service men and women first. Neat!

Gee Job1, dumber than this?:

Job1:Why do you act like such a butt w!pe?

You guys are just too funny for words.

WCA - Never ever forget the purpose of these boards... entertainment. For as much bravado spent in wordsmithing as there is here, the sole purpose is for us to have fun while sniping everyone that doesn't agree with you.

In my opinion, rayon sucks, cotton is the best... can't stand Pepsi, but love Coke... Brussel sprouts are the worst vegetable ever cooked and I love mushrooms on my pizza. Can anyone argue with that? I challenge you to! (smile)

Here's the facts--we'll have $173B to pay $306B in bills.

That's a default, regardless of who gets paid and who gets shafted.

And it could all be avoided if Republicans would do what's been done 74 times since JFK was President--submit a clean bill to increase the debt ceiling.

That would be me, the butt wipe, it's pretty funny though. It's funnier to hear it from a grown man.

John B, sounds like a credit card problem doesn't it? Guess what I would do? Cut the card up, stop the spending because there's no more credit and cut. Geez, sounds like a grown up thing to do, don't you think? I'm pretty bad at the credit thing though, I pay cash for about 99% of the things I buy.

RIGHT!

The Republican party has only passed 3 bills to address the debt limit; that's not enough.

They need to be like the Democrats who have proposed ZERO bills fro a vote to raise the debt limit.

How DARE those Republican do their jobs, propose bills, and vote on them.

That was your point, right? That the only people to do any work whatsoever are the ones to blame; and the Democrats who have sat on their thumbs for months are the ones working by not proposing any bills at all to be voted on.

Would you like to explain how doing nothing is better than doing something when something must be done to raise the debt limit again?

I mean since you're proud of the ones who haven't done crap for months attacking the only ones who have done anything, you mus think if they all did nothing bills would become laws without ever being written or proposed? How does that work in your weird little world?

Great Conservative talking point, Paul. Now, let's make it a little more real world. Would you decide not to pay your existing bills, surrender everything you had already bought on those credit cards, and forever destroy both your credit rating and your future employment prospects?

That doesn't sound very grown up. The grown up thing to do would be to seek out additional income, look for ways to economize, resolve not to buy anything new that can be avoided, and pay down the cards gradually without trashing your credit.

Joe has got to go. He's got to put his Ben Franklin costume on ebay. Sell the bell, all the whistles, the Revolutionary War Flag collection and the rest. He's got unpaid bills to pay. So, Joe, time to get a job, time to stop lying, time to get responsible and maybe even time to grow up. Ask Mr. Boehner for one. He knows where they are. Just ask him.

Hi Jody,

As always you are on target with the facts. Thanks

PS, God told me to support President Obama.

Jody: Well written as always. I'll be looking for some paragraphs on NBC's nightly news. There certainly was a lot to right about.

Jody ~ An excellent report, as always.

By the way, I heard on Rachel's show last night that the North Carolina legislature eventually DID override Perdue's veto. As Melissa Harris-Perry quipped, North Carolina is now on its way to becoming Kansas.

:-(

Joe Walsh, on the other hand, is actually behaving in a heroic fashion. He's not leaving any debt for his children (or much of anything else, either). He's taking all the debt on to himself where he plans to keep it. The ultimate sacrifice by a parent.

;-)

Have a great weekend.

Anna Molly, Rachel's show did report last night that the NC House and Senate did over-ride Perdue's abortion legislation veto but not the Voter ID one--yet.

Thanks for the kind words everyone, once again lots of good stuff was left on the cutting room floor. What a week it has been.

I guess you composed this last night and missed this morning's big news-

GDP for the second quarter was announced at 1.3%. Don't get too excited about the positive number- GDP for the first quarter was revised down- from 1.9% to 0.4%.

Quarter four of 2010 went down almost a whole percentage point, too.

A few days ago, Spanky asked me when we'd get to zero growth- I replied that I thought we were there, but it would not be announced until the revisions, to which wry few people pay attention. It's a lit like unemployment- few people notice the millions subtracted from the labor force, which drives down the unemployment rate. It would be 12% were the same number of people counted in the labor force as two short years ago.

I am almost stunned at the willful self-deception of those who continue to cling to the Obama illusion. We are subjected to Obama's drama and ineptitude in jut about every area of governance- the Iranians probably HAVE a nuclear weapon today- seems they were underwhelmed by his charm. Even the North Koreans see him as a nitwit- it's a fine thing when a certifiably crazy leader sees the President of the United States as a vain, preening half wit. He did NOTHING in response to warnings about food shortages causing unrest in the Middle East and North Africa- and that could have been hugely beneficial both economically and foreign policy-wise.

His record on the economy is, frankly, a nightmare. If a problem cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it, he is completely flummoxed by it. That he insisted on holding firmly to a failed economic policy bespeaks a kind of economic ignorance and/or arrogance that is breathtaking to behold. His steadfast refusal to accept responsibilities for his failures on the economy is, to put it mildly, childish in the extreme.

His supporters and sycophants in the media reject the proof before their very eyes, always convinced that he must have some secret "plan". He is outsmarting us, they say. Look at his calm demeanor! This is proof that he knows more than do we!

Well, I have a bit of news for you- if Obama had a plan that worked, he would have used it by now. Things are not getting better, they are getting far worse than anyone could have imagined. No amount of massaging the numbers negates those facts.

Then First Read asks if Republicans can govern?

Try turning the question to the Obama administration. Put down the pom poms, guys.

Jody:

Another Friday "Home Run". Looks like you have a commanding lead this year.

Isn't God and Obama all in the same Job1? Anyways, I didn't know God was involved in politics, but hey, who knew.

njnbnj: GDP for the second quarter was announced at 1.3%. Don't get too excited about the positive number- GDP for the first quarter was revised down- from 1.9% to 0.4%.

Quarter four of 2010 went down almost a whole percentage point, too

It's clear Obama's economic policies have been a gigantic failure. We'll never see the Obama butt-sniffers around here admit it, but you'd think the Main Stream Media would start to swing over to reporting it is Obama's fault. It's clear the Obama is the MSM's guy, but even they have their limits.

You don't get sarcasm, do you Paul-Florida? BTW, the conservative talking point about President Obama being the Messiah passed its "use-by" date two years ago.

Bachmann told her audience that paying for government programs will become increasingly difficult. She didn't mention that "starving" government of revenues it needs to pay for a strong military, two wars, keep air and water clean, food safety, FAA, disease control, FDA, etc. will have the desired GOPTP result--an excuse to eliminate the social safety nets for the white-haired and graying folks who went to see her.

This is a conservative strategy known as Starve the Beast. Just another conservative middle and working class killing strategy.

Jody, every week I tell you outstanding post and this week is no different. Great work. Appreciate the kind word.....the image that report conjured in my mind still has me laughing, (rather like nojo and others this morning, their hair is on fire trying to make a distraction).

Thanks again for all your work, it has been a busy week.

See you later at the DDI.

Yes, it is "starve the beast", babina.

GBM, you're welcome, credit where credit is due. Maybe No Joe and JS1 are about to spontaneously combust as well.

Babina, what white-haired folks are harmed by keeping a plant that would employ a thousand people shut?

How many of them were harmed by giving half a billion dollars to one of Obama's big donors?

Or another half a billion to one of his donors to build a wind turbine plant in China?

Or $13.2 million, (and an Ambassadorship), to anothermof his donors?

In any other administration, this level of corruption would have already resulted in impeachment proceedings. Because the media is besotted with Obama, it is barely reported.

This is not just the most incompetent president in the history ofmthis country, but the most corrupt. That you and the rest of his religious cult can excuse him is beyond belief.

no joe, no bo, nj

That is a great rebuttal to Jody's post. Looks like I will have to go back and watch Obama's Monday speech if I can find a video copy because I did not come to the same conclusion as Jody.

Great recap, Jody---a highlight of the week for me.

David Letterman always calls Bachmann "O'Bachmann"---not sure why he started doing it but he does--mayber she is a Letterman fan? I wouldn't bet on it but you never know. She is nowhere near Palin's league in the hair & makeup department.

Jody--I always look forward to your weekly wrap-ups! Excellent commentary! Have a great weekend.

Great recap Jody! Thanks for keeping the truth alive.

Once again Jody, many thanks for diligently re-capping the events of the week!

Obama’s approval numbers hit all-time low

"Just 40 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president. That is down three percentage points from Thursday. 50 percent say they do not approve of the job he is doing.

Just 41 percent of the public said they approved of the way Obama was handling the debt-ceiling negotiations, while 52 percent disapproved, according to another Gallup poll released Thursday.

Obama has also lost ground against a generic Republican challenger — getting 41 percent of the vote when matched with an unnamed Republican who polled 40 percent.

Obama’s approval rating is below that of former President Bill Clinton’s lowest approval rating during the government shutdowns of 1995."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approval-numbers-hit-time-low-185402373.html

What a freaking disaster.

Good job Leader Reid - Yesterday afteroon I proposed that Reid was saying Boehner's bill was DOA in the senate to trick the Tea Party.

_______________

I believe this is a ploy by Reid to discourage Tea Pary GOP from voting for Boehner Bill. With announcements like this he is hoping the TP rationalize it is not worth voting for the Boehner bill. It allows the Senate leader to say the House couldn't pass a plan.

That said, First Read what is next? Anyone?

#2 - Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:56 PM EDT

__________________

I understand Chuck Todd had similar thoughts about this ploy as me. However, my question still is out there what is next? Repbulicans are weaker. Boehner can't lead his fractured party. They have lost all legitamacy, it is no longer about them wanting to control spending. They balked at $3 Trillion in cuts because they refused to give anything in taxes. Now I hear they were against the Boehner bill because it didn't cut out $17 billion in pell grants.

Think of that for $17 billion to help educate our future they are willing to throw the dice and welcome a default. These GOP are insane.

Here is my take - Boehner gets the votes legislation is passed and hits the senate. Reid ammends the bill, stripping out all spending cuts and sends it back to the House "clean" for an up or down vote. Then Boehner is forced to vote against his own bill. Genious.

Right, the vote on his bill was... nonexistent.

The Republicans have the CCB they voted on before the "crisis date" what do the Democrats have? Oh they're STILL writing their bill; they haven't proposed a single thing to be voted on.

Good job guys, stellar work in sitting on your thumbs; those thumbs aren't going anywhere... we're all impressed with how the senate works so hard... when did the Senate last propose their annual budget? About 840 days ago now, yes?

How many days are in a Senate year Senator Reid?

If you're expecting the Senate to do their jobs and get some work done; you've not been paying attention. It takes then 3 years to make an annual budget... how long will it take them to handle a problem with a time limit like this?

I suspect by mid-November Reid's bill will be ready for a vote... maybe.

John Boehner has to be the angriest; most frustrated and embarrassed man in America.

Imagine, on a national stage, the Speaker’s heralded debt reduction bill, the bill that tells America that the GOP cares and this is our plan, that we’ll go it alone bill cause the President isn’t a leader...that bill…and he couldn’t get enough votes in his own caucus to bring it to the floor of the House for a vote.

Funny thing about leadership, if you can’t govern your own party how do you criticize the man trying to lead the entire country. If you can’t find a way to compromise within your own party, how do you expect to be able to compromise with the Congressional Democrats and the President? In this microcosm of government dysfunctionality, you get a little glimpse of what the President has to deal with on a daily basis when it comes to negotiations with the GOP.

Yesterday, the TP proved that they will do anything to change the America we live in. An ends justifies the means strategy. They are out of control and the Speaker and the House Majority Leader and the Majority Whip cannot talk sense to a bunch of ideologues who simply don’t care or don’t understand the consequences.

John Boehner lost control last night. The President regained control. I would hope that today he stands up and says this is what I want, I will veto anything else. That’s the power position he is in now.

One last thing…do you realize that if the Congress just raises the debt ceiling and does nothing else and waits for the Bush era tax cuts to expire, over 10 years that will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion…the targeted goal. Now add a real debt reduction plan to that and let’s see where we’ll be.

Politician’s are good at at doing nothing. This is a no brainer.

Cause amidst all this manufactured crisis, we’ve totally neglected debate on jobs and the economy. A 1.3% growth in the second quarter. We are falling back into a recession and the idea of taking more money out of the economy through cuts, now just seems ridiculous.

Anna Molly:

With or without guns, those Packer fans are more than a little bit crazy. May the Packers do well, except when they play the Colts. BTW, I think they do play the Colts twice, once during preseason and one "real" game. Both games at Indy, the stadium Manning built.

Cheers to that post, Anna Molly. I don't talk about guns much either but you summed up by feelings exactly. Iowa passed a concealed weapons law this year and the result is signs on business doors saying "no concealed weapons allowed" as if that will work.

x

Ira, I too think this is a no brainer.

So my conclusion is the theory that John A. articulated in above post. This is all about "disaster capitalism".

The extreme right wants this manufactured crisis to keep the economy at the brink or returning to a deeper recession. They want not only to starve the government but produce a economic famine. That would be the real crisis.

Ira, above all, you seem to be a reasonable American & you correctly state that that the Bush Taxcuts are set to expire at the end of 2012. However as we've seen within this current debate(uncalled for in my opinion)our elected officials are all about Reelection instead of Governing this great nation. 10 years of Bushes Taxcuts have produced this mess, yet some here think they still need to extend taxcuts into Infinity.They want roads, bridges, fire, police, etc, but they don't wanna Pay for these services.

With that said, Speaker Boehner found out last night how Hard it was to Lead his Own party. Big Business brought this upon themselves & Now they demand an End to it. The GOP said business wanted Certanity, so they could expand, Now the GOP has Manufactured so much Uncertainity, Business(rightfully so)is Demanding Compromise!

Who Wins, who Loses is no longer important!

Noone is Winning & America has Lost!

You Betcha!

NorthstarDFL..

We're already there..we are at an economic famine.

A 1.3% growth coupled with dismal job numbers yesterday, no demand and a GOP Starve the Beast theory of economics.

Markets sliding down over the last 5 days, dollar trading lower, futures took a hit today and the Dow is down about 90 already.

Wow...lets suck another 2.7 trillion out of the economy and see how that helps...absurd.

Call me crazy, but after last night, the TP will have lost a great deal of credibility with the American people and I'm sure the GOP leadership will. by now, sat them dawn and twisted their arms so far up their back they can scratch their heads.

You can't make this stuff up...a group of 5a freshman congressman who want to fundamentally change the government of the US.....

Ira,

I saw that $4 trillion in savings if the Obama tax cuts are allowed to expire. Last December I noted that the tax cuts should have been eliminated. All of them upper and middle class. I argued to that effect here on First Read I think the only taker I had here was Alan, NJ.

Still the simplest answer. Those supposed magical cuts that were supposed to clear up uncertainty have helped us to a .4 GDP in the first quarter and a 1.3 GDP growth in the second quarter. They have been ineffectual as I knew that they would be. Typical GOP response would be but it could have been worse if taxes were not kept at the same rate as throughout Bush's term including throughout Bush's recession. Ironic that people refuse to let Obama claim the economy would have been worse without his stimulus yet spout the same logic about tax cuts.

I agree after the debt ceiling is settled go forward with something like a Gang of six approved plan to reduce future deficits. The streak continues sir we are on the same page. Can't wait for that discussion on immigration. With our current crisis however I doubt FR will post something about immigration in the near future.

Mark..

Great minds think alike...lol..

It all seems so simple and we need do nothing right now...just raise the debt ceiling.

Go with the Gang of Six or Simpson Bowles or a combination of both.

Let the extended cuts expire...that's $4 trillion over 10 years and, as I mentioned weeks ago, reforming the tax code brings trillions. As an example....there are currently $1.4 trillion in subsidies in the code. Just one example.

We can talk about immigration next week..

Great weekend.

AM, I think two things will prevent the scenario from occurring- 1, who's going to give up a potential place to smuggle a beer in in order to carry a gun into the stadium? (Tongue in cheek but only slightly. We Wisconsinites are a cheap people- we would WAY rather conceal free beer than guns when going into Lambeau) and 2, most season ticket holders value their seats too much to do anything to put them at risk of losing them. Get tossed from a game and it's bye bye season tickets. Sure, this could potentially help me out since I'm under 500 on the wait list, but I just don't see it happening. Maybe in other venues but not Lambeau.

Concealed carry hasn't negatively impacted in gun violence in 48 other states, I highly doubt Wisconsin will be the exception.

Suzy, it's only a matter of time before concealed weapons do result in violence. With guns in the state capitols (AZ), or in bars or football games. Sports events are often disrupted by fist fights--picture those with someone carrying a concealed weapon. It invites trouble. We have enough gun violence without making it easier for more to carry weapons without anyone knowing it.

Anna Molly reference #7

I guess you would probably want to outlaw ammonium nitrate as well. There are farmers out there buying it by the ton. You never know about those crazy farmers.

But I do have to say that I agree with you about guns at events like NFL football.

Jody, that's sort of like saying it's only a matter of time before driving a car results in an accident. Concealed carry laws have been on the books in some states for more than 20 years and the real world statistics do not support an increase in gun violence because of them, in face most data shows a decrease in all crimes including gun violence when concealed carry is legal. The majority of gun violence is not being committed by those who've followed the letter of the law in either obtaining or carrying their weapons. THOSE are the people you should be worrying about, not your next door neighbor who's put the time and money into taking the classes and applying for their permit. In my experience, at least, those who legally own guns by and large respect their right to do so too much to lose it by committing random acts of gun violence.

IR:

Outstanding and gave me a chuckle or two on a depressing Friday.

Guess President Obama is going to be giving a Speech soon. I guess he is still involved. He always was just trying to let the children get it out of their system before he steps in.

Good one, IR. Ghostbusters is about right.

Hey bil, remember yesterday you brought up how the article 'Dems Retreat' seemed like an odd account of how the debate is going?

Thing about it, yesterday the article said, Dems in Retreat... now the article says Dems Have Leverage... I don't know who signs off on this stuff, but you can't beat it with a stick.

Everything we see is shaped by the media's account. They have the messaging and it is shaped by back room deals, whether it's Republican or Democratic... the information pumped out is designed to fashion society toward a goal and that goal is world dominion... call it Conspiracy Theory, but there is a major objective that has been taking place since we were able to think.

Louis:

Yup...that was me yesterday. Apparently the two competing news values (journalism and eye balls) come out more favorably for eyeballs most of the time.

I'm still scratching my head about "Dems Retreat." How is that news anyway? It's been going on for 2.5 years...but when the GOP retreats? I guess it's not news.

So now the Dems have leverage? I guess that's true, but somehow the FR editors must have their heads spinning like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist."

Ok, so adding another 15 trillion to the debt every decade isn't an economic black hole?

30 years out, 60 trillion in debt; lets go with early 1990's interest rates around 5%... 3 trillion dollars a year in interest.

Projected Government revenue 30 years from now? Hey, about 3 trillion... awesome, we can cover interest and have nothing else left at all.

your plan is that people will keep lending us money even when we're spending 100% of our income just to pay the interest on our debt? and this isn't the plan for the "economic black hole"? you think there is a worse one?

And 5% isn't the highest interest rate we've seen on Federal Debt... it's kind of average really... right now we'd owe another 500 billion if interest rates hit 5%... and we should double that in 10 years?

Do you have any plans for where you'll get the 1.5 trillion to pay that interest? What are you cutting then? Wouldn't cutting 500 billion now be easier than cutting 1.5 trillion then? is the hope that the entire country wins the lottery, or dies, or find the magic goose that lays the golden eggs before the bill comes due?

But yes, give them nothing and make certain that the next generation has so much debt that they won't have government spending.. they'll just have taxes to pay interest on your debt. that's fiscally responsible, not like those people who think the next generation should get to have some of their money for themselves...crazy TP people.

I agree with that Fancy. The best thing that can be done at this point is to give the President 30 days and to go back and have the Ruplicans take the best deal that they're going to make and let's move on.

While that sounds like a good plan, not sure they can agree to it at this point. There just isn't the time. What they should do is pass a "clean" debt ceiling increase and tackle the cuts and revenue increases in the budget negotiations where it belonged in the first place which reminds me, they need to do the budget in about a month.

You really need to stop ingesting those funny mushrooms and get back to reality.

The TEA Party is a bunch of irresponsible Republicans. The entire System of Government in the United States is based on Compromise. No one person/organization will ever get excatly what it want's in a Democracy. A few TEA Party representitives are holding the House of Representivies hostage because the Republican House Speaker is NOT strong enough to SAY SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE.

The House is a very important element of the United States Consituation but NOW they are non-functional. I assume that the powers that be will recognize this lack of responsibility and will do the right thing. I am not a Consituational Lawyer but I assume the forefathers thought of this problem and as a Democracy we have a way to solve the problem. I think the Senate can take an independent action and solve this current crisis. Thank GOD there are no TEA Party members in the Senate. The Senate Republicans are responsible Americans and will help solve this problem.

The citizens of the US took things into their own hands and held a TEA party which included throwing all the English TEA into Boston Habour. We may be at a point now where we need to throw the TEA PARTY into Boston Harbor.

The 2012 elections are coming soon.

...and Speaker Boehner gets away scot-free, yes? Even though he yanked his own bill yesterday before it went for a vote, yes?

Brutus IS an honorable man.

All Presidents have to be prepared to deal with a split congress. Obama's inexperience is coming back to haunt him again. During the Stimulus, Health Frank/Dodd, etc debates Obama should have stood up to Nancy Pelosi and told her were not going to pass legislation w/o some support from the other side of the isle. Instead he pressed on. Now that he doesnt have the majority in both houses, he's bassiclly rendered himself a lame duck. VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2012!

I see...so, it's President Obama's fault that Speaker Boehner yanked his own bill. Thanks for the clarification.

UAW - Yes, Presidents must be prepared to deal with a split Congress. However, Presidents should not have to deal with the opposing party's number one priority - make the President a one-term President. While POTUSs should be prepared to deal with the fact that the opposing party wants someone from their own party in the White House, most don't have to face this as the NUMBER 1 priority.

Before the bill came out Obama said he would veto it. This adds more fuel to those opposed to working with him. Many Presidents before Obama were able to get budgets passed and debt ceilings raised. Look I'm not saying you guys need to love Republicans. I'm just saying if you want an effective president pick someone else to run in 2012. It would be easier to replace one president than 30-40 congressman to get the majority back. Seriously the Republicans havent landed on a good presidential candidate yet. Rather than risking the Presidency by forcing the country to pick the best of the worst. Find a better leader on your side...... VOTE FOR CHANGE IN 2012!

We will vote for change in 2012. We will throw as many Republicans-Tea Baggers out of office.

Job1, that won't help if you still have a poor leader in the Whitehouse.....

Again, it is difficult to work with a group who states that the number 1 priority is to make the President a 1-term President. I'm not defending everything that President Obama has done or said. However, he said that he would veto the bill if it only deals with problem in the short-term. To me, that makes sense. Additionally, he has made concessions, concessions that have angered the far-left.

I see...so, it's President Obama's fault that Speaker Boehner yanked his own bill

Well, Boehner only used one "DO OVER!" so doesn't he get another mulligan?

We have to consider... he is new to this stuff, so we should give him practice time to get it right - right? OH! Wait! He is playing with this nation's future...

maybe we should just get rid of him and follow our President out of this mess. Seems the President is the ONLY one in D.C. seriously working to do what is right for our country.

There are many in the House and Senate, from both sides that need to ousted. If some of these uncompromising, egotistical individuals are replaced with people who are actually able to work with others, I think that President Obama would be a good choice. Or maybe Jon Huntsman. But, truly, I believe that these uncompromising individuals in Congress need to go.

In fact, I've heard many Republicans state that President Obama would be OK if the Democrats were voted out of Congress. Again, I think that some individuals from both parties should be voted out.

Yes it will. Vote for the Democrats in 2012.

So the republicans don't want the president to get a 2nd term? That's just shocking!

Please give an example of when democrats or republicans have supported the re-election of their opponents sitting president...Bueller?

It's like getting mad that as a met fan I root for two teams; The Mets and whoever is playing the YANKEES...

Would the democrats be working towards president McCain's re-election?

I knew it, dangerfield. I can always tell.

See, i'm in a "mixed marriage"- my husband is a Mets fan, and I am a Yankee fan. Makes life interesting every so often- like July.

What's odd is, when the Mets won the World series twice, I, and a lot of other Yankee fans, jumped right on that bandwagon. It's hard to root against the Mets- for me, ot would be like rooting against your little brother.

We should have a conversation sometime about the similarities between Steve Phillips and Brian Cashman- two inept weasels who did more to harm the teams they were generally managing than any pair ever before.

At least Phillips is gone. . .

I was using an old joke to illustrate the silliness of bemoaning the fact that your opposition won't support your re-election. My best friend in the world is THE all time Yankees fan and we go to games at both beautiful new parks. I envy the Yanks, I don't hate 'em.

While I'm at it, I'm also tired of hearing about who is the "only adult" in the room, when none of them are.

Brian and Mary Cashman were clients of mine and I happen to think Cash is a BRILLIANT GM...Phillips, not so much. Phillips was like a politician and went out like one, didn't he?

Sorry, dangerfield, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Kevin Brown. Jason Giambi, instead of Johnny Damon, when we needed an outfielder, not a first baseman. The list goes on, but I don't want a headache- but I cannot forget what he did to Bernie Williams and Joe Torre- all when "the Boss" was suffering from Altzheimer's, and he was able to get away with this nonsense.

I don't know them personally, maybe he's a nice guy.

But a GM? He stinks.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

You really need to stop ingesting those funny mushrooms and get back to reality.

And in your world NavyBoy, what is reality? The Progressive Party lack of movement or the NewsVine Progressive Fan Club movement? Whatever it is, your world is soon to change for the better.

Don't you love it to know Barry O is caucasing with the Republicans while Harry and the other two Stooges are in the Senate without an invite to the meeting - just phone conversations. And isn't it amusing that the Boehner plan is being discussed?

Old Barry will throw anyone under the bus for the chance of re-election. Woosh! There goes your values.

As much as we'd all love to see that happen, it never will. Knowing the way our Congress works, they'll probably attach a rider to whatever bill they come up with and give themselves a pay raise.

But it makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, they insist on spending cuts, right? Well Congressional salaries, expenses, healthcare and perks looks like the number one place to begin.

How often have we heard about "leading from behind" during this situation? Well, Congress should practice what they preach and be the FIRST in line for spending cuts, leading by example, and show us how serious they are about that.... otherwise, SHUT UP and get off "entitlement" reductions!

OH! I forgot to mention Congressional pensions too.

LETS REDUCE SPENDING!!!!!!

Deadbeat Dad, way to be an example for right wing conservatives...

Oh, but the opposers promise they are not racist or anything - Having a black President is not the reason they insist on this different, double standard --just ask any of them.

Their actions speak MUCH louder than their excuses, and their attitutdes can not be masked.

as long as it keeps the Liberals from destroying our country....let the Tea Party rule!! If it were not for the Tea Party, the debt reduction talks would not be the center of discussion in DC.

We need spending cuts, and we need the 50% of American's who do not pay taxes to get off the tit of the American taxpayers. Perhaps if they paid taxes, we would not need to raise the debt ceiling!!

Thanks for confirming getit's point, andwhat.

Who's playing politics with the debt ceiling?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-white-house-seek-to-reassure-base-on-debt-ceiling-talks/2011/07/26/gIQAd7godI_story.html

And, I guess it was just a poor choice of words when Jay Carney said, this morning, that Obama did not want a short term deal because it would come up again during the "most important economic season" in the country.

He was referring to the election season.

You guys keep with your blind devotion to the worst president to ever occupy the Oval Office. The rest of us are too busy dealing with the constant disasters.

Ignoring no joe is one of the best decisions I ever made. Ever.

Telling someone you're ignoring them is actually acknowledging them...You ignore someone by (and I don't mean to be redundant here, but I MUST) ignoring them...

No Jo,

I'll be as honest as I can with you. Politicians do not work in a vacuum, policies and decisions are made with a mind on the pulse of their supporters. Just as Speaker Boehner is having difficulties within his own super majority in the House; Obama or any politician needs to assure his base that he/she will bargain with them in mind.

You are entitled to your opinion that the President's wish for a one and done debt limit raise thru 2012 is purely political; I will agree that plays a part. However, I think a much larger part to his desire is that we need to squash this uncertainty and can't go through this ordeal again in six short months. Can you imagine the spectre of default arising and political squabbling heightening when manufacturers and retailers are hoping for consumers to buy during the Holiday shopping season? Looking at it at a purely political point, how many times has Congress done big things in an election year? Aside from HCR which was weakened by fear of voter reprisal I can't think of much. The added pressure of the election would only embolden and radicalize both sides and compromise will be that much harder.

As discussed in an earlier post, let the Obama tax cuts die, all of them go away at end of 2012. That is $400 billion to $450 billion a year. In the meantime, address future deficits and yes entitlement reforms in a Gang of six type plan.

Nashville-

I am not a violent person, but I wanted to knock that smirk off of Peggy Noonan's face this morning.

What a joke she is. She is so irrelevant that she thought it would be a good idea to call the President a loser and Joe sat there encouraging her to be even more disrespectful.

I suspect it wont be long before we find out it is the American people who are losers and all because we have the Taliban running the House of Representatives.

Sheila:

This is what happens when you have an entire party owned and operated by the same folks that bring us the fake news daily. These folks really do think that most Americans are stupid. President Obama's insistence on doing real things based on reality has really put a spotlight on what a useless money sucking body the Congress is and who they are really "representing".

dangerfield:

Would it be a violation of your "ignore rule" to point out that ignoring you is the second greatest decision I ever made? :o)

Sheila.... YES. You ARE a violent person. Unfortunately it comes naturally to you. The violence, that is. Thank God you are a "white chick". Otherwise, I would not feel politically correct prescribing your violent tendencies. Get help!!!! Mnay white-born liberals get violent over time because of their misguided views. Basically, they're stupid. But you might be ok with some treatment.

You guys keep with your blind devotion to the worst president to ever occupy the Oval Office. The rest of us are too busy dealing with the constant disasters.

You mean like the ones you and your AINOS have created with the two unfunded wars, two unfunded tax cuts, an unfunded Drug Plan and reduced regulations on Wall Street, Big Banks and Big business. Do you mean that crisis or are you referring to the the newly manufactured Debt Ceiling Crisis created by the AINOS that in reality has nothing to do with the Debt Ceiling and everything to do with gutting the government for their own power and greed.

It is your devotion to people like Norquist, Koch, Rove that should be examined.

all I know at the moment...Is this is no freakin game. I have worked hard all my life..I love my country...I am wondering if this time next week I will still have anything left in my pension. If my beautiful grandson is going to have near the quality of life I had growing up. This is no freakin game...This is our lives these incompetents in Washington are playing with. I am so tired of worrying because of all the posturing the ruling political parties are doing instead of their jobs...This is no freakin game...I am tired of hearing about how this effects the next election. Anyone that studies American political history Knows that even the most ineffective President gets at least two terms.So this is not about the election or shouldn't be. that is still far away and much can happen between now and then. but in the meantime our government is using us as pawns in some sort of sick political Game. I for one will not let them play with my livelihood any longer. If they don't get this done before it effects my pension to the point Ihave to keep struggling every day to worry about how I can feed my family or myself, or pay our medical bills. Then I will revolt...what choice will they have left me? And I mean against all politicians..left, right, I don't give a flying front door which.This is not a game, this is my life...

lol, Vine is always good for a good vent...have a good one everyone;) just a little good news today.")

I guess those of you predicting a sweeping victory for Obama don't believe in polls unless they are telling you what you want to hear and I don't mean just one but several.

the same polls that give Congress an almost across the board 20% approval rating, those polls? The thing to watch in the next election will be since Obama is unopposed, Democrats and Independents will get to vote in the GOP primary in states that have open elections like we do here in Texas and in I believe there are 20... Persoanlly I hope a dingbat like Palin enters the race and she continues to open her mouth, she will likely get my vote

I could be wrong but I have this sense that President Obama is giving the republicans enough rope to hang themselves.

I think he will sign the 14th amendment but only after they have proved the house can't pass a bill and the only alternative is for the president to step in rather than drive our country into a depression.

The negotiator he is wants to come to a compromise and would rather see the government work the way it is supposed to.

Obama and his desire to spend and spend is driving us into a depression. Why is it so difficult for a liberal to understand that you can't contionue to spend more than what you bring in. If Obama and Reid are really working toward a compromise then why do they keep saying they will not sign this bill or that, this bill or that bill is dead on arrival. Why does Obama have no plan? Why did he back out of the deal with Boehner when he had a deal? Why as the Democratic Senate not done a budget? If these people worked for a company they would be fired. How can anyone be against a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Obama should be leading this process he is the President after all. And what is with all the secret meetings and committees that are being set up anyway. Were are those cameras Obama said he was going to install?

If Obama decides to do this on his own he will be impeached. He does not have the authority to do this under the 14th amendment. Even Clinton agrees with this.

What do you not understand about this balance budget is that it will send American in a deeper recession if not a depression just to keep from raising taxes on the riches in America again.

The republicans can't even get one party to agree, how are we ever going to 3/5 to agree to anything.

Let go for permanent gridlock so the teabaggers never have to compromise.

Republicans always seem to forget we were heading in the right direction without a balanced budget admendment until bush came in with the help of the republicans and started borrowing money for tax breaks and then used faux to drive up emotions for his wars. Then 2 unfunded wars and continued borrowing for tax cuts.

We were headed the right direction just 10 years ago and there is no need to freak out that America can never get the spending under control again.

Sign a clean debt ceiling increase and lets see after the 2012 elections and see if America really wants to lose their social security so the rich can continue to have tax cuts.

A balanced budget is what we need. These people do not care if they spend all of our money. Thye get paid no matter what. Adding more debt is not the answer. We need to be paying down our debt. If you just keep adding more debt every single year eventually you run out of money. Pretty basic really. We just kicked the can down the road. The average citizen will pay for this - just watch and see.

newsflash. Obama doesn't need any help, he's doing it all himself. Just listen to what he reads from the teleprompter. In one breath he suggests we need compromise, and yet the next he backs the Democrats in the Senate's bill. And with the help of the liberal media the sofa liberals blame the republicans without even thinking about what they are agreeing to. That's what our politics have been reduced to.

Actually the Dems and Obama have sealed their own fate:

Obama’s approval numbers hit all-time low

"Just 40 percent of Americans say they approve of Obama’s performance as president. That is down three percentage points from Thursday. 50 percent say they do not approve of the job he is doing.

Just 41 percent of the public said they approved of the way Obama was handling the debt-ceiling negotiations, while 52 percent disapproved, according to another Gallup poll released Thursday.

Obama has also lost ground against a generic Republican challenger — getting 41 percent of the vote when matched with an unnamed Republican who polled 40 percent.

Obama’s approval rating is below that of former President Bill Clinton’s lowest approval rating during the government shutdowns of 1995."

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-approval-numbers-hit-time-low-185402373.html

What a freaking disaster.

Looks like you have a bright career in spamming ahead of you pjam...anything else to say?

For example, how 'bout you comment on the 21% and falling approval level Republicans have for their handling of the debt ceiling?