Debt ceiling: blame

So, given that many on the right seemed eager to start blaming Obama for things roughly two years or so into his presidency, at what point is it appropriate to start blaming the Republican led congress for its spending bills, which have resulted in us having to increase the debt ceiling?

Are you seriously trying to put the blame on ONE side of the aisle ?

You *are* a partisan motherf&cker.

-t

No, there is plenty of blame to go around, but I see that many people are still stuck into turning one side into a villan. In the case of the right, this is obviously Obama.

Thing is, it does look like the economy was thriving and stable under Clinton, Bush promised and delivered tax cuts he shouldn't have in order to get elected and then the reps have basically done what labour did in the UK and run everything on borrowed cash so they looked good but left a huge mess for their inevitable replacements. Who they are now trying to shift the blame onto along with promising more tax cuts to try to oust Obama. Its good that voters didn't fall for it again I suppose, though they still have the power to f*ck things up for Obama just to make him look bad, so yes I think its pretty much fair to blame one side for the problem actually.

The only thing Obama has really done wrong is not clean up after Bush quick enough. If he had, people would probably have fancied those tax cuts again and Mitt Romney would be doing exactly what Bush did all over, ready to blame the next democrat.

I guess the thinking is that if you repeat Obama = crazy spender enough it eventually becomes true?

Well, sure, but they're lying to themselves.

In this whole charade, there are only two sides: f*cking politicians, and American citizens, who get the short end of the stick.

-t

No, two sides: f*cking politicians and monied interests in this country, and pretty much everybody else in this world.

The fact that this is even being discussed shows that the public is even less aware of the real threat which is the debt ceiling fan.

Nice one! :thumbsup:

You run your credit card to the max. call the card provider and ask for a higher limit. Then what? the problem, Spending too much, hasn't been fixed. At what point does the credit card company take your stuff?

When you stop paying.

Actually no, they would hire a collections agent who's only role is to annoy you mercilessly. I don't think they're allowed to actually physically take anything from you. The lender is owed a debt, but only in money, they have no claim on your actual "stuff." Even if they get a lien against physical property (by winning in court), I don't think there's a way to force you to liquidate that property if decide you don't want to. Repo men only come if you have secured loans, and credit cards are unsecured.

The debt ceiling was an invention of Congress when they delegated their authority to hold debt auctions to the treasury. Congress could take back responsibility for holding the debt auctions and the debt ceiling would become moot.

This debt ceiling fiasco is beyond retarded. It has nothing .... I repeat NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with future spending. It is only about paying for expenditures that Congress AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY has already authorized. The POTUS is REQUIRED BY LAW to spend the funds as Congress has directed. If the Congress refuses to levy enough taxes to cover the expenditures it has voted for then it MUST borrow the difference. If Congress doesn't want to borrow those funds then it shouldn't vote for deficit spending. But what it can't do is vote for deficit spending .... which requires by law the POTUS to spend those funds as directed ... and then turn around and refuse to authorize the government to borrow the funds needed to comply with the law it passed. The POTUS is then forced to decide which laws to break .... the appropriations authorized by Congress ... or the debt ceiling set by Congress.

If the GOP wants to take a stand on FUTURE SPENDING that's fine. Then the appropriations bills coming out of the House going forward should have a "dollar in reduced spending for every dollar the debt ceiling is raised". If the POTUS refuses to sign such legislation ... then the appropriations bills coming out of the House should reflect a BALANCED BUDGET. If the POTUS still refuses to sign such legislation .... then the GOP should force a GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN and deal with the consequences. But to threaten to default on the debt already incurred by legislation Congress authorized reflects a MINDLESSNESS that is indicative of a fundamental unsuitability to govern. :err:

OAW

Bingo. Take a page from Gingrich.

I don't know if this is true: Congress makes appropriations, but executive departments are not required to fully spend them as long as they achieve their legal obligations. Can you point to a credible analysis showing the required expenditures, rather than the appropriations, require the issuance of new debt?

The POTUS is very much limited in this regard ...

Impoundment of appropriated funds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OAW

Calling all Progressives:

Woe be the day @ 4.4% unemployment, $160 billion dollar deficit, 40+% increase in Federal revenue, and compromise on a bunch of nonsense both sides of the aisle wanted - wars, warrantless wiretapping, and all. Where did all the Federal revenue go? Where is it going now, anywhere different? We already know we won't find it in wars we're no longer fighting so, do we look for it at all? I mean, what we're doing now is akin to a mechanic who continues throwing bolts at the one he dropped to increase his odds of finding a bolt, and then reporting his success rate back to the shop owner. If the mechanic doesn't eventually work on the car, he's going to get demoted to a bad risk regardless of his bolt-found rate. Who is to blame?

Can Congresspeople talk about spending on Earth Day? Boxing Day? I mean, if debt ceiling negotiations get tied up, there's certainly no need to begin cutting off Social Security payments and the like -- that's well within the rights of the guy who is writing gun legislation right now. Wouldn't those very services be in jeopardy regardless?

I'd blame the GOP too if there were another way to get the other side's attention.

You sound like Turtle, making it seem that only your keen conservative mind can grasp the fiscal mess we are in now.

I think I speak for everybody when I say "we get it". We, meaning, there is nobody who participates on this forum who doesn't get it.

The problem is, about 98% of all that "get it" still vote for the same Democrat or Republican asshole politicians. Job well done.

-t

You see the solution as voting for a Libertarian, or not voting at all? If so, what would make a Libertarian fundamentally different from any other politician, aside from the things they might say to persuade you to vote for them?

Obama 2006 V Obama 2013
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...96491583_n.jpg

Here's Obama's explanation for his change of heart.

"When you're a senator, traditionally what's happened is, this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit — for the United States by a trillion dollars. As president, you start realizing, you know what, we, we can't play around with this stuff."

Oh really? You figured that out, huh?

snopes.com: Obama on the Debt Limit

Very good research, I used the wrong words. The executive isn't required to spend authorized funds in the discretionary budget. And that amounts to a lot, although I'm not sure if it's enough to stop running a deficit.

How are these two statements in conflict with one another?

:err:

Both statements are true, no?

Not according to him.

As he says in the quote I provided, it's not a leadership failure, it's senators (such as himself, explicitly) considering their own hide rather than the future of the country.

My point is that while getting to the point of having to raise the debt ceiling is clearly failure (primarily congressional), in the present, the here and now, not raising the debt ceiling would be irresponsible, like he said.

I guess the problem is that Chongo's quotes are void of context because the person who juxtaposed them was more interested in coming up with a flashy gotcha infographic that would resonate with people like Chongo.

Well, I gave you a whole page of context.

After having read it, Chongo's not the one I feel needs to have a shot taken at him.

Oh... I'm sorry. Please provide for me the liberals decrying the fiscal mess we're in right now. I'll wait here. Otherwise, you sound like a DNC shill.

Really? Let's take a look at this concern for spending;

• "... at what point is it appropriate to start blaming the Republican led congress for its spending bills, which have resulted in us having to increase the debt ceiling?" Which spending bills? The tax cuts? It didn't manifest in the Federal receipts, where did the money go? Oh, the wars? That was bipartisan. Got anything that wasn't the product of your precious calls for compromise?
• "I guess the thinking is that if you repeat Obama = crazy spender enough it eventually becomes true?" Is that the thinking? That these unprecedented deficits are the product of, not the Democrat-controlled congress because that would require some integrity and a decided lack of partisanship, not the President because that would be unthinkable and racist, but Republicans from 5+ years ago?
• But what it can't do is vote for deficit spending .... which requires by law the POTUS to spend those funds as directed ... and then turn around and refuse to authorize the government to borrow the funds needed to comply with the law it passed.

Here we have a thread on the debt ceiling and the above are our mentions of spending. Two defending Obama because he's not a spender and a third statement made in error as if Republicans have been labeled "obstructionist" for their compromises on spending measures.

You don't get it. If we can't talk about spending while authorizing BORROWING LIMITS FOR THE US, when can we talk about it? Please answer.

Honestly I'm surprised this didn't come up in 2011. Example 1A of why senators usually don't make it into the White House.


When deciding the budget (aka spending)?

Then there was candidate Obama saying:
If adding $4 trillion in eight years is irresponsible and unpatriotic, what is adding $7 trillion in four years?

Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube

Really ebuddy? Your argument is that if the same things that have been said before are not specifically laid out in this thread so that this thread can be an independent entity from any other MacNN thread that has ever existed, whatever occurred in other threads is irrelevant and should not be taken into context? Conversation does spill into multiple threads, I'm sure you've noticed this?

Not a very strong argument.

I'm sure you hate when liberals generalize and stereotype conservatives, yet you seem to want to paint liberals as morons who don't understand the concepts of spending beyond one's means.

Lame.

My statement stands on its merits because at the end of the day it's TRUE. :err:

But to answer your question, the time to "talk about spending" is when the negotiations begin on how to replace the across-the-board SPENDING CUTS already voted and signed into law by the SEQUESTER agreement with more measured and targeted spending cuts of the same amount. The subsequent opportunity "talk about spending" is during the ANNUAL BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS process. These are the times to discuss FUTURE spending. The time NOT to "talk about spending" is when the time comes to raise the debt ceiling because Congress AS AN INSTITUTION voted for PREVIOUS spending and then refused to levy enough taxes to cover those expenditures. :hmm:

OAW

Budget amendments as separate bills are also possible, right? Therefore, there is no reason why spending cuts have to hold other bills hostage that I can see.

These cowboy political standoffs ala the fiscal cliff need to stop.

:lol: What budget? Did we have one of these this year? BTW, the SEQUESTER was a ridiculous notion neither side wanted in order to force the hand of compromise that isn't going to happen so they'll simply suspend it again. C'mon man.

It was all those threads in context that convinced me of my position, I just used this thread as yet another among multiple examples. Of course, not that I recall you ever contributing to all these facts.

It wasn't supposed to be an argument, it was an exposé.

I'm not calling them morons, I'm calling them distracted. I wouldn't be trying to get their attention if I thought they were morons. The sooner you leave me be, the sooner I can get back to them.

I agree.

Maybe somebody who follows these sort of things closer than I do (and I don't mean that sarcastically or insincerely) can help me understand why it is that we aren't debating budgets and spending cuts year round? Why is everything so seasonal, and so deadline based? Isn't a budget something that impacts pretty much every aspect to running a government? I understand that there is a deadline to get a budget passed, but what about the prospect of amendments, or simply not waiting until the very last minute to start trying to gain traction for certain programs and/or changes?

I've wondered the same thing about health care debates too.

Okay ebuddy, who here doesn't understand that we have a debt crisis and what this means, and what evidence do you have that supports this?

This should be interesting to hear.

I think we both know that the BUDGET is largely symbolic my friend. Where the rubber meets the road is in the APPROPRIATIONS bills. This is where government expenditures are authorized by Congress. And again ... it's an annual process. That is the appropriate place to debate future spending because that's what it's designed to do.

OAW

I asked when we can talk about spending. You answered; The subsequent opportunity to "talk about spending" is during the ANNUAL BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS process. It follows you'd conclude the BUDGET is a gimmick because the President has only once submitted a budget to Congress within the deadline and the Democratic-controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget resolution since 2009. Of course, this is silly in light of the fact that we've already established that the SEQUESTRATION was entirely symbolic and that didn't stop you from bringing it up.

To be clear, you're now saying the subsequent opportunity to talk about spending is during the ANNUAL BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS process.

You can't imagine how relieved I was that we could finally talk about spending during the APPROPRIATIONS process, except... Reid won't bring an appropriations bill to the Senate floor, OAW. No debate, no haggling, no talk of spending. Can we request that he do so this year so we can talk about spending on Earth Day? Boxing Day?

Wait a minute! We can't really talk about spending during the APPROPRIATIONS process either can we? After all, there are two types of appropriations; Mandatory spending and Discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is not addressed through the Appropriations process and accounts for 2/3rds of the federal government’s total spending including stuff folks may want to talk about such as stimulus, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, soon- ACA... you know... the only things we really need to be talking about with regard to spending.

i.e. nice try

I would think such a dire crisis would warrant a little more legwork on your part - for starters.

The SEQUESTRATION remains the law of the land that goes into effect in approximately one month. Naturally, Congress can kick the can again if it chooses to. But again, the point remains. That would be an ACT OF CONGRESS as an institution. If Congress doesn't want to kick the can anymore then it has the power not to. Simple as that.

If only it were that simple ....

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those seem like Appropriations bills to me. Since then we've had a number of these ....

Continuing resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which at the end of the day are still Appropriations bills to continue funding the government at existing or reduced levels. The point remains ... Congress as an institution does NOT have to pass such legislation. If the GOP wants to force a reduction in "SPENDING" ... .... then all they have to do is NOT VOTE FOR IT with a party line vote in the House. They can simply filibuster it in the Senate. If the GOP can't negotiate an agreement with the Dems on DEFICIT REDUCTION .... then grow a pair and SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN. Simple as that. The problem is that the GOP doesn't want to take the heat for doing that.

And therein lies the rub my friend. The GOP talks about the deficit as if the issue is only one the SPENDING side of the equation. Incessantly we here the same old tired TALKING POINT about "Washington doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem." Well if that were true and the American electorate actually believed that ... then balancing the budget through spending cuts alone would be a freaking cake walk because the people would support it! But you and I both know that voters like the idea of cutting spending in the "abstract" especially when they perceive it to benefit OTHER PEOPLE ... but they balk when "specific" spending cuts impact THEM. But let's be clear here about what the historical record reflects. The GOP is not the party of "lower spending". It's not even the party of "fiscal responsibility" because that would require a willingness to actually pay for the programs and services that government provides. No the GOP is the party of "lower taxes" ... and as a collective it could give 2 shits about the impact of tax cuts on the deficit. That is, until a Dem is in the White House. And when the White House is controlled by the GOP .... "Deficits don't matter." is the order of the day.

The bottom line here is that people like their roads and bridges well maintained, they like their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Etc. Even the GOP is enamored of "spending" when it benefits a DEFENSE CONTRACTOR and not some poor single mother on food stamps. So the only way to address the real issue which is the DEFICIT PROBLEM is to cut unnecessary and wasteful "spending" AND raise additional "revenue" to cover the programs and services that the people want to keep. The people will NOT support balancing the budget through SPENDING CUTS alone. And the people will NOT support balancing the budget through ADDITIONAL REVENUES alone. So if one is truly interested in reducing/eliminating the DEFICIT then they'd address BOTH sides of the equation. Unfortunately, one side of the aisle is willing to take a balanced approach. Whereas the other is not. :hmm:

Fair point. But again ... Congress in general and the GOP House majority in particular can address MANDATORY spending at the time of its choosing. What the GOP should NOT do however is throw a tantrum like a 2 year old and precipitate a global economic meltdown just to get its way. If the GOP truly wants to cut spending on Entitlement programs then the first thing it needs to recognize and accept is that it does NOT control the entire government. So getting 100% of its way is simply NOT going to happen. Compromise MUST be the order of the day (i.e. a "balanced" approach of spending cuts and additional revenues). Then after that the House GOP needs to bring a bill to the floor that accomplishes said goal and can pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the President. Simple as that. But as long as Speaker Boehner is on this "majority of the majority" BS instead of a "majority of the House" approach ... then it becomes abundantly obvious that solving the problem is taking a back seat to political posturing. :hmm:

OAW

It would appear that the House GOP has come to their senses ...

House Republicans back away from fiscal clash with Obama | Reuters.com

"Technically" this is kicking the can down the road for another 3 months. But the "conditions" in 3 months is that both chambers of Congress pass a budget by April 15. What's telling is that it does NOT say that both chambers have to pass the SAME budget. This is a face saving way for the House GOP to back down. And yes I agree ... the Dem-controlled Senate SHOULD pass a budget.

OAW

When a person, a family, a company or a government are spending more than they are earning. The solution is seldom to borrow more to fund an unsustainable existence. IMHO

Are you expecting disagreement?

The whole point of the SEQUESTRATION was that it was so politically untenable for both sides that they'd relent to compromise. It will be bought down again and pushed out further. It's the hand forced by Republicans to talk about spending and you bet they're getting beat up over it, for far too long we've been avoiding talking about spending because it's politically untenable. This is what it has come to and yes, it really is simple.

Reid filed cloture on the Omnibus Act in an attempt to thwart debate because of * rinse-repeat * Republican obstructionism over an 8.3% spending increase over 2008 levels and their concern over the rapid expansion of the federal government when combined with the 2009 Stimulus Package. He eventually had to pull it, but this has been very typical Reid. It should also be noted that this Omnibus bill (so-called because it's an up or down vote on a package of appropriations - all up or all down -- politically untenable for opposition, but fantastic for earmarks) was culled together to shore up a failed Appropriations process from 2008. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 was signed into law on December 16, 2009 and shored up a bunch of FY 2010 appropriations bills that were going stale in Congress from late 2009. You're saying it's too late to talk about spending while discussing our borrowing limit and that we should rely on a failed appropriations process occurring nearly a year late.

... necessary to accommodate a failed appropriations process. Because of course, Republicans tried to talk about spending during the scheduled appropriations process, but "the other side" couldn't and now the government is about to shut down. What to do? Let the government shut down and get beat up to the point where there is no sane voice left in office? Ironically, it is coming to this anyway.

No... the problem is the GOP is the only party willing to take any heat for spending cuts. I know it's fun to watch, but not really anything folks genuinely concerned for their country to hang their hat on.

Let's stop right here. It may be a tired line, but it is indeed true. If you could show me declining Federal Receipts in spite of a decrease in Outlays, you might have a point, but since you can't -- you're just going to push it off on "the electorate" who it only follows would continue to vote itself a greater share of the largesse as you've acknowledge on several occasions here. The problem is, while FEDERAL RECEIPTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE year over year, SPENDING continues to increase over receipts at an exponentially greater pace; hence the deficits exceeding $1 trillion annually and a continued need to push the borrowing limit ever higher.

All you're saying is that the kids will continue to drink until the adults come home and break up the party and that "party-crashers" are unpopular with kids. What's missing in your analysis, OAW? Let me answer - discipline. As long as the dreaded GOP are the only ones wringing their hands over sustained, absurd deficits and out of control spending, Democrats can continue to beat them over the head with it, we will not get spending cuts, and in fact as long as Democrats control the White House and Congress, they'll merely continue trying to beat the GOP about the head instead of talking about spending cuts. This is not a concern for the country, this is a concern for maintaining office.

The impact of tax cuts on the deficit? I keep hearing this. Can you show me a decline in Federal Receipts following the Bush tax cuts? That's where it would hit right? You'd cite a decided decline in Federal Receipts, starving the annual budget, and causing deficits, but since you cannot -- you'll merely parrot meaningless platitudes. Notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of Bush's expenditures were bipartisan in nature and only garnered the ire of opportunist on-the-job-trainee Senators and the GOP who would see to it that anyone who even looked like a Bush was booted from office.

You won't see one dime of this precious tax increase on "the rich" going to pay down the deficit and you know it. This is a red herring of the highest order.

Pure demagoguery. When it is apparent that the last thing you want to do is piss off an angry liberal in the White House, you'd better make sure your military is capable of carrying out the Administration's lofty goals lest we forget Clinton's regime-change doctrine for Iraq and Obama's unprovoked military actions abroad.

I wonder which DEFENSE CONTRACTOR makes DRONES, do you know?

Quit putting it off on the people who it merely follows will continue to vote themselves a larger portion of the largesse, OAW. We need leaders. Again, the Federal government continues, year-over-year, TO RAISE ADDITIONAL REVENUE and yet not one dime of this revenue is going toward balancing the budget. Not one dime. Why? Because SPENDING continues to exceed the ADDITIONAL REVENUE exponentially. i.e. it's not even close. The problem is so apparent that anyone with so much as an abacus at their disposal would know the root cause. The problem? It's politically untenable to address the root cause and the Republicans are exhibit A. While it might be pleasant for you to watch the GOP's implode over their insistence on spending cuts, it's not really out of any concern for the state of the country.

Of course, not that you actually believe any of this bs. You've gone through great lengths to reiterate that the people will not vote themselves cuts in bennies and then continue to kick it back to them. Which of course stands to reason in light of a decidedly absent leadership on the other side of the aisle.

Fair point? It's the only friggin' point, OAW. You're saying they can talk about spending, but only a third of it. The rest is partisan mumbo-jumbo.

To sum up your point: congratulations, you've found one failed appropriations process from 3 years ago, another from 4 years ago, and resolutions covering failed appropriations all to make your point that it is here that we should talk about 1/3rd of Federal spending. We cannot talk about spending cuts during the appropriations process because it's broken and doesn't begin to touch the lion's share of spending, we cannot talk about them during our borrowing limit negotiations, we cannot talk about them on Earth Day, and we cannot talk about them on Boxing Day. Why? Because the GOP lost the election and the President and Democratic-controlled congress have a mandate from the people who would continue to vote themselves a greater portion of the largesse and that's okay because it's horribly bad for the opposing party.

Not good enough man. :shake:

Past: For reaching the ceiling, blame both.

Present/Future: However, for breaching/raising the ceiling……

I wonder if defaulting is bad tasting, yet required medicine?

I'd also like to point out that "every day" seems to be the day to talk about gun control, which is blatantly obvious from the "every day is the day to talk about gun control" thread. But when it comes to creating a budget to reign in unsustainable spending ...This isn't a conversation our nation should be having.

Shut up and pay, damnit. And stop asking questions.