Technically true but Bush's war in Iraq and Cheney's "deficits do not matter" meme were at the heart of the rampage. And it was Paulson et al ie Bush's financial team that started the bailout mentality bs.

If we get to Aug 2, maintain interest payments on the debt and have to curtail all other spending by 40%, the ratings agencies ought to UPGRADE US debt. I agree that it should be downgraded in the event of a totally weak compromise, but failing to raise the debt ceiling should not itself warrant a downgrade. If anything, that means the debt issue has come into clearer focus and there is a slight chance of an actual coordinated solution.

This might be a reasonable deal if when we hit the debt limit next year they cut again and cut again, eventually will catch up. But how can we trust future governments to keep doing it?

Last One into the Bunker goes to the FEMA Camp!

Good Luck to everyone!

Mortgageguy - ding ding. Exactly right. And at that point we should be writing 30 year fixed rate mortgages at 3.0% and the price of everything - housing, cars, food, energy should come down. Those with cash would be king. What's so wrong with that?

Nobody is intending to cut. What Washington wants to accomplish is a HUGE show that they tried. Huge enough that you will have it ingrained in your mind come election time. Everything else is bull****.

The reason is that back home where they actually get elected, their states are broke. Any tax raise or spend cut will affect state coffers to the negative, forcing cutbacks and the ability to hand out home grown pork.

The republicans have to play tough on taxes. The dems have to play tough on social spending. Those are their roles in the game. Which ever side you are on it is "We are fighting really hard for you!". At the end of the day, it is state revenue and economic conditions at home that really count.

The general public is gullible and falls for the game. It is the two party system that screws you right and screws you left. Enjoy the show.

When Boner caves (and he will) ... if the Ballot box fails in 2012 (and it will) ... eventually people will have to move onto the next *box* ...

Prepare accordingly.

Quote:

Ahem. Congress increases the limit, not The President. Yes, the POTUS could veto legislation which raises the limit, but Congress can also override a veto.

Okay, we'll be more accurate. The GOP majority legislature raised the debt limit several times while Dems voted against increasing the limit. Bush did not object or veto upping the ceiling.

It doesn't matter which party holds Congress or the Presidency. We get the same results.

And for those who continue to chant, "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem", I defy you to come out of your ivory towers and show some empirical data supporting your claim. Go look at the data concerning revenues and spending versus debt and deficits since the onset of the Great Depression and, with the exception of a short time period during WWII when defense spending exploded, show me where spending and not revenues were the problem.


Falls in revenue correspond to rises in Deficit/GDP

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com

Quote:

When Boner caves (and he will) ...

Boehner just basically told Obama and the Dems to pound sand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011....

BigBluffer, I tried to PM you but your mailbox must be full.

Rjazz117 wrote..

Boehner just basically told Obama and the Dems to pound sand...

Kabuki isn't just a form of theatre in Japan ... most of the politicians in D.C. have taken a class or two ...

I'll wager with anyone that they raise the debt ceiling by $2 trillion or more by July 22nd ... its essentially already done. All they have to agree on is how the middle class taxpayer gets it:

Missionary? (Obama's favorite so he can see the look on your face as he ****s you)

Doggie? (Boner's favorite so you can't see him cry as he goes to town)

Or pick another position from the Kama Sutra ...

@IFly:

Not sure why you'd do that ... Karl has nuked the crap out of the "its a revenue not a spending" problem over the last 18+ months.

Bigbluffer evidently failed reading comprehension or his fundamental understanding of economics and government entitlements is *kiddie pool* depth to make such an absurd assertion as rendered above ... anyone replying to that assertion is feeding the troll ...

Quote:

And for those who continue to chant, "we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem"

I'm one of those chanters. While it is technically true we have a revenue problem, it is not for a lack of taxes, it is for a lack of structural/organic GDP of which to tax. Ever increasing tax rates on an ever decreasing structural GDP will end in tears (if it is not already underway). Therefore we have a spending problem.

Bigbluffer:
We do have a spending problem. No matter how much or how little money you earn, you have to spend less than you take in. Most working people understand that, but the government doesn't.

Lots of fiscal conservatives were upset, and even outraged, with Bush and the Republican-led Congress and their out-of-control spending. I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh after the 2006 election, when the Democrats took control of Congress. He basically said, "The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves."

Rvacha wrote..

Ever increasing tax rates on an ever decreasing structural GDP will end in tears (if it is not already underway).

BINGO ... you're ****ing brain dead in economic understanding if you can't get past this part.

Passing money around isn't PRODUCTIVE GDP and full on 75%+ of what Government engages in these days is transfer payments ... (same goes for most of the *******s on Wall Street) ... and ...

YOU CAN'T BUILD A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY WHERE EVERYONE IS IN GOVERNMENT OR IS A BANKER ...

Spot on Rvacha.

Quote:

I defy you to come out of your ivory towers and show some empirical data supporting your claim. Go look at the data concerning revenues and spending versus debt and deficits since the onset of the Great Depression and, with the exception of a short time period during WWII when defense spending exploded, show me where spending and not revenues were the problem.

Empirical data? I think the argument requires no data at all. I hope you are not going to get mad at me.

My argument is the problem is pork, which defines the problem as dietary.

Have a nice day

i always recall the first law of politicians
that is of course to get themselves reelected
so pardon my cynicism but i predict a deal gets done

that's in the interest of the pols not the peeps of course

i know gen no likey gold&silver but i really dont see an alternative

part of me just says 'let the left have its way' just prepare accordingly

and btw 'mangoelvis' is my new fave m-t nametag

I don't know, fluffer - your chart tells me that the Fed.Gov has spent more than it's taken-in in revenues every year of the 20th century, in good times and bad, in war and in peace, virtually without exception.

Which, being the logical fellow I am, tells me that the problem is on the spending side of the ledger.

Bigbluffer wrote..

I don't know, fluffer - your chart tells me that the Fed.Gov has spent more than it's taken-in in revenues every year of the 20th century, in good times and bad, in war and in peace, virtually without exception.

"Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." - Mencken

Best way to sum that up ...

The Government has never successfully taxed at a rate of greater than 20% GDP (exept for that little blip associated with WW2) We are now spending well over that now. You can't call it a revenue problem unless you can get spending under 20%.

In my mind 20% is WAY WAY to high. The vast majority of our history it was significantly less than that. Just about everybody here is upset because of corruption. This is a product of the government being to big. Congressmen have tremendous power when they are controlling 1/5 of every dollar that moves. Government is involved in so much of our lives that if you where a businessman, you almost have to buy off congress just so you can have a successful business.

Government MUSt shrink. If 10% is good enough for God, it should be good enough for the state. The only way we get the country we love back, is to shrink Government. We must take away the congress critters strangle hold over 1/5 of everything that happens here. This is a question of liberty and freedom not just a question of economics.

Quote:

Passing money around isn't PRODUCTIVE GDP and full on 75%+ of what Government engages in these days is transfer payments ... (same goes for most of the *******s on Wall Street) ... and ...

YOU CAN'T BUILD A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY WHERE EVERYONE IS IN GOVERNMENT OR IS A BANKER ...

Absolutely agree. However there is the possibility of productive government spending, e.g. infrastructure. For example, when the government spent money in the development of the internet, it developed a base upon which jobs could be created and productivity could be increased. Was that wasteful, non-productive government spending? I absolutely disagree. Businesses need highways and bridges in order to get supplies from point A to point B, and they need energy for production. This investment has not, will not, and should not come from the private sector as they are inherently monopolistic ventures.

Quote:

Bigbluffer evidently failed reading comprehension or his fundamental understanding of economics and government entitlements is *kiddie pool* depth to make such an absurd assertion as rendered above ... anyone replying to that assertion is feeding the troll ...

Forgive me if I'm not impressed by your lack of eloquence. Santa told me I was right, how 'bout that?

Last one into the bunker goes to the FEMA Camp......would you like more gruel?

Good Luck to Everyone! Keep your powder dry!

Praise the Lord and Pass me more Ammunition!

Bluffer, you up for another Bertdilbert theater? and your mailbox is full... too much pork in it.

at the end of the day Boehner and the rest of them know it doesn't matter, because they already have their taxpayer guaranteed golden parachute and healthcare plan.

The Gov't margin of error in projecting budget deficits is larger than these annual deficit cuts - Total ****ing bull****.

Obama's forecast assumes annual GDP growth of 4.5% thru 2020.

Obama's forecast assumes fed fed rates of 2% thru 2020. Average since 1980 is mid 5%.

Now given our structural problems and continual deflationary deleveraging , what are the odds that we will average above trend GDP growth? Or maintain fed funds rates half of LT averages?

Fantasy Island - boss da plane da plane