Politics

[connor_in]

Did you forget the obstructionism by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid during the whole healthcare debate? They violated every rule of decorum to push through something that an overwhelming majority of Americans were oppossed to.

And just because Obama has failed miserably at building a consensus on any issue, that doesn't constitute obstructionism by the Republican party. Obama needs to understand the role of the Executive branch of governement in relation to the Legislative branch. And that isn't a phone and a pen.

TTT brings this up which triggers the question, that may have been asked, but not sure I have seen a reply...

What would have been the D or even the media response if W had come out with the EXACT statement President Obama did about governing via the phone and the pen?

 

[T Town Tommy]

TTT brings this up which triggers the question, that may have been asked, but not sure I have seen a reply...

What would have been the D or even the media response if W had come out with the EXACT statement President Obama did about governing via the phone and the pen?

It would have been a firestorm. Plain and simple. True journalism is dead today as witnessed by their repeated efforts to not investigate issues with the Obama presidency. The Bengazi tragedy, the IRS targeting, and countless other Obama issues would be front and center on every major paper and tv news station in America non stop. Non stop.

If there was ever a doubt there was a liberal lean in today's "news" agencies, it has been put to bed with this presidency. And those that call themselves journalists should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you are being disingenuous here.

There is a very old saying that is very true...It takes two people to have an argument.

In this case, D's wanted one thing and wouldn't move...R's wanted another and wouldn't move. This is what lead to what happened. It is not like the D's were bending over backwards to reach any kind of agreement. BOTH sides brought things about...no just one

The debt ceiling was an argument that was invented. It was never an issue in the past, but all of a sudden it became onebecause the GOP said they would not approve a hike (even though they had approved the spending already and the debt ceiling would be used to pay the bill). It takes two sides to have an argument, but in this case, the argument was created by the GOP. The Dems didn't feel as they had a choice but to join in on the "argument" the first go-around. The second time the GOP tried to use this argument, Obama refused to negotiate, but instead of giving him credit for applying good common sense to governing, the GOP chose to depict him as a progressive tyrant. C'com man. You know this is what happened. If the GOP is going to play hard ball, they should have the balls to own it after the fact.

 

[GoIrish41]

Did you forget the obstructionism by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid during the whole healthcare debate? They violated every rule of decorum to push through something that an overwhelming majority of Americans were oppossed to.

And just because Obama has failed miserably at building a consensus on any issue, that doesn't constitute obstructionism by the Republican party. Obama needs to understand the role of the Executive branch of governement in relation to the Legislative branch. And that isn't a phone and a pen.

It is impossible to build consensus when one side's guiding principle is that whatever he wants, we are against. In order to get anything done -- albeit not with the same kind of shelf life that legislation would bring -- the president has no choice but to use his power to make executive powers to get things done (like every other president in American history has done). The Congress has become a freakin' joke and has been the most do-nothing legislative group in American history. Should the president just shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, I guess we just won't get anything done then?" or should he do what he can to make things happen. I know what your answer will be, and I suspect that we disagree completely at the path he should take.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The debt ceiling was an argument that was invented. It was never an issue in the past, but all of a sudden it became onebecause the GOP said they would not approve a hike (even though they had approved the spending already and the debt ceiling would be used to pay the bill). It takes two sides to have an argument, but in this case, the argument was created by the GOP. The Dems didn't feel as they had a choice but to join in on the "argument" the first go-around. The second time the GOP tried to use this argument, Obama refused to negotiate, but instead of giving him credit for applying good common sense to governing, the GOP chose to depict him as a progressive tyrant. C'com man. You know this is what happened. If the GOP is going to play hard ball, they should have the balls to own it after the fact.

You act as if this is some new tactic they invented within the last 5 years.

During Reagan's terms, Democrats used it as political tool on numerous occasions. And let us not forget our current President opposed raising the ceiling as well.....

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘trillion’ with a ‘T.’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.”

 

[T Town Tommy]

It is impossible to build consensus when one side's guiding principle is that whatever he wants, we are against. In order to get anything done -- albeit not with the same kind of shelf life that legislation would bring -- the president has no choice but to use his power to make executive powers to get things done (like every other president in American history has done). The Congress has become a freakin' joke and has been the most do-nothing legislative group in American history. Should the president just shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, I guess we just won't get anything done then?" or should he do what he can to make things happen. I know what your answer will be, and I suspect that we disagree completely at the path he should take.

It is not impossible to build consensus. Bill Clinton knew that he would not be reelected if he did not come to the middle more. And by doing so, and working with a Republican Congress, we enjoyed aa great decade of balanced budgets and sustained economic growth.

When neither side wants to budge, we have what we have today. A flatout stalemate. Being a conservative Republican I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's agenda, but I also admire him for doing what a President should do and that is lead. Obama doesn't lead. He doesn't work to build a consensus. Instead, he throws outs comments such as the ignorant phone and pen one and then expecta everyone to fall in line. Sorry but he is the poster child for entitlement. He feels he is entitled to what he wants, when he wants it, and everyone is not stepping in line. That is NOT how government works. He needs to pick up that phone, call Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and have them over so he can learn what it means to disagree but find a way to reach common ground for the greater good.

 

[GoIrish41]

You act as if this is some new tactic they invented within the last 5 years.

During Reagan's terms, Democrats used it as political tool on numerous occasions. And let us not forget our current President opposed raising the ceiling as well.....

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. Over the past five years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ‘trillion’ with a ‘T.’ That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers.”

The raising the debt ceiling isn't what is makes spending go up. Passing legislation that approves funding to be spent is. The debt ceiling is a way to keep the commitments that Congress has already made. Not raising it would be disasterous to the economy when the country goes into default. The GOP is trying to take credit for approving legislation and then blaming the Dems when the debt ceiling isn't approved to pay the bills that Congress ran up.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It is not impossible to build consensus. Bill Clinton knew that he would not be reelected if he did not come to the middle more. And by doing so, and working with a Republican Congress, we enjoyed aa great decade of balanced budgets and sustained economic growth.

When neither side wants to budge, we have what we have today. A flatout stalemate. Being a conservative Republican I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's agenda, but I also admire him for doing what a President should do and that is lead. Obama doesn't lead. He doesn't work to build a consensus. Instead, he throws outs comments such as the ignorant phone and pen one and then expecta everyone to fall in line. Sorry but he is the poster child for entitlement. He feels he is entitled to what he wants, when he wants it, and everyone is not stepping in line. That is NOT how government works. He needs to pick up that phone, call Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and have them over so he can learn what it means to disagree but find a way to reach common ground for the greater good.

First off, I agree with what you write.

However, I still think this time is truly different. Today, we live with a "in your face" media that has turned politics into a two year cycle where one party is trying to make the other look bad to win the next election. I am not sure either party is interested in the greater good anymore if it means a stalemate in the upcoming election.

There are really only two things that can get us passed this IMO. Term limits or a rise of alternative parties. Until one of these two things happen, I am not confident that we will see anything in Washington that resembles any sense of collectivism.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It is not impossible to build consensus. Bill Clinton knew that he would not be reelected if he did not come to the middle more. And by doing so, and working with a Republican Congress, we enjoyed aa great decade of balanced budgets and sustained economic growth.

When neither side wants to budge, we have what we have today. A flatout stalemate. Being a conservative Republican I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's agenda, but I also admire him for doing what a President should do and that is lead. Obama doesn't lead. He doesn't work to build a consensus. Instead, he throws outs comments such as the ignorant phone and pen one and then expecta everyone to fall in line. Sorry but he is the poster child for entitlement. He feels he is entitled to what he wants, when he wants it, and everyone is not stepping in line. That is NOT how government works. He needs to pick up that phone, call Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and have them over so he can learn what it means to disagree but find a way to reach common ground for the greater good.

Bingo. Clinton got the message in '94 after the Contract with America. And America was the better for it. Obama just doesn't understand that message. He'd rather just try and go it alone through Executive Orders. (Cash For Clunkers II! The sequel!)

 

[Ndaccountant]

The raising the debt ceiling isn't what is makes spending go up. Passing legislation that approves funding to be spent is. The debt ceiling is a way to keep the commitments that Congress has already made. Not raising it would be disasterous to the economy when the country goes into default. The GOP is trying to take credit for approving legislation and then blaming the Dems when the debt ceiling isn't approved to pay the bills that Congress ran up.

I am not disagreeing with you on that.

But this game has been played before. We have now seen in the last 30 years both D's and R's using the debt ceiling as a political tool.

 

[GoIrish41]

It is not impossible to build consensus. Bill Clinton knew that he would not be reelected if he did not come to the middle more. And by doing so, and working with a Republican Congress, we enjoyed aa great decade of balanced budgets and sustained economic growth.

When neither side wants to budge, we have what we have today. A flatout stalemate. Being a conservative Republican I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's agenda, but I also admire him for doing what a President should do and that is lead. Obama doesn't lead. He doesn't work to build a consensus. Instead, he throws outs comments such as the ignorant phone and pen one and then expecta everyone to fall in line. Sorry but he is the poster child for entitlement. He feels he is entitled to what he wants, when he wants it, and everyone is not stepping in line. That is NOT how government works. He needs to pick up that phone, call Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and have them over so he can learn what it means to disagree but find a way to reach common ground for the greater good.

Obama has moved to the middle -- too much for my taste, quite frankly. But when the GOP moves further right, they think that the center moves with them to compensate. As a Democrat, I reject that notion. Obama has had to deal with more obstruction than Clinton ever did when he was president. He has given in to the GOP far too much. Ask Boener what he meant during budget negotiations when he boasted, that he got "98% of what he wanted." Is this 2% of what he didn't get the basis for your contention that Obama is an elitist dictator? It is almost comical to discover the rationale behind the GOP rhetoric. It would be actually comical if it didn't have real consequences for real people.

 

[Black Irish]

As much as the brands of Republican and Democrat are tarnished these days, I don't see any evidence of a legitimate third party emerging. If one does, then you'll see Ds and Rs come together; to stamp out the competition.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Obama has moved to the middle -- too much for my taste, quite frankly. But when the GOP moves further right, they think that the center moves with them to compensate. As a Democrat, I reject that notion. Obama has had to deal with more obstruction than Clinton ever did when he was president. He has given in to the GOP far too much. Ask Boener what he meant during budget negotiations when he boasted, that he got "98% of what he wanted." Is this 2% of what he didn't get the basis for your contention that Obama is an elitist dictator? It is almost comical to discover the rationale behind the GOP rhetoric. It would be actually comical if it didn't have real consequences for real people.

So how do you know that the 98% of what he wanted was all R agenda items? What if he knew to get what he truly wanted, he would have to give up some things along the way?

I wasn't there and I have no idea what he truly wanted. Likewise, I am fairly certain that no matter the outcome, he was going to say he got 98% of what he wanted to placate the media and his base. It's theater, and really crappy theater at that. Taking it any further than that is reading wayyyyy to much into quotes.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Obama has moved to the middle -- too much for my taste, quite frankly. But when the GOP moves further right, they think that the center moves with them to compensate. As a Democrat, I reject that notion. Obama has had to deal with more obstruction than Clinton ever did when he was president. He has given in to the GOP far too much. Ask Boener what he meant during budget negotiations when he boasted, that he got "98% of what he wanted." Is this 2% of what he didn't get the basis for your contention that Obama is an elitist dictator? It is almost comical to discover the rationale behind the GOP rhetoric. It would be actually comical if it didn't have real consequences for real people.

We can agree to disagree then. Obama hasn't moved far enough to the left according to the left wing extremists. But he is so far from the middle it isn't funny. Boener's comments was nothing more than political rhetoric. As a pitiful House Leader, he is simply saving face with his party. The party that can step up, put their all or nothing agenda aside, and offer true leadership, will be the party that leads us in the future. And it isn't going to be John Boener, Harry Reid, or President Obama. They all three have failed the American people miserably.

 

[phgreek]

It wasn't the progressives who continuously threatened to tank the economy over the debt limit and who shut down the government to get their own way in the past couple of years. I have heard a lot of Republicans since Obama take office suggest that compromise was a dirty word, and that they were there to ensure their constituents get what they want ... dare I say, by any means necessary. The Senate majority leader stated in Obama's first term that his party's No. 1 goal was to ensure Obama didn't get a second term. To that end, the party began a pattern of obstruction that this government has never seen in its history. You statement strikes me as absurd because it completely ignores the facts as they have played out over the past five years.

...what activity the Rs engaged in hasn't been done by democrats...also, what activity did the Rs engage in that creates a constitutional crisis...When did the Rs change the rules in the senate to stamp out debate...mhmm, that's what I thought.

 

[GoIrish41]

As much as the brands of Republican and Democrat are tarnished these days, I don't see any evidence of a legitimate third party emerging. If one does, then you'll see Ds and Rs come together; to stamp out the competition.

Actually, I think eventually the Tea Party would break off into a third party if they didn't need the support of the Republican establishment. Those two entities are clearly not on the same page in almost every case, but they put up with one another because they share a hatred for the Dems. I also would not dismiss the prospect of Rand Paul branching out into a libertarian party when he is snuffed out by the republicans in the next presidential election cycle. Of course, that will just mean he will peal off more votes from republican candidates, thereby ensuring a Dem (Hillary) wins the election.

 

[GoIrish41]

So how do you know that the 98% of what he wanted was all R agenda items? What if he knew to get what he truly wanted, he would have to give up some things along the way?

I wasn't there and I have no idea what he truly wanted. Likewise, I am fairly certain that no matter the outcome, he was going to say he got 98% of what he wanted to placate the media and his base. It's theater, and really crappy theater at that. Taking it any further than that is reading wayyyyy to much into quotes.

You would have to ask him to tell you what he meant when he said he got 98% of what he wanted. I am taking his comments at face value. He didn't say he gave anything up along the way. He said 98%. He is a politician, and I understand spin, but you also have to be held to what you say, and to a larger extent, what your actions are. The actions and rhetoric of the republican party over the past five years have been harmful to them as a party and to the nation.

 

[phgreek]

Actually, I think eventually the Tea Party would break off into a third party if they didn't need the support of the Republican establishment. Those two entities are clearly not on the same page in almost every case, but they put up with one another because they share a hatred for the Dems. I also would not dismiss the prospect of Rand Paul branching out into a libertarian party when he is snuffed out by the republicans in the next presidential election cycle. Of course, that will just mean he will peal off more votes from republican candidates, thereby ensuring a Dem (Hillary) wins the election.

...that seems not to be the case when you see the number of people disavowing allegiance to any party, but breaking toward "change". H-rod is NOT change...what will her slogan be...NO Hope...No Change...

 

[T Town Tommy]

You would have to ask him to tell you what he meant when he said he got 98% of what he wanted. I am taking his comments at face value. He didn't say he gave anything up along the way. He said 98%. He is a politician, and I understand spin, but you also have to be held to what you say, and to a larger extent, what your actions are. The actions and rhetoric of the republican party over the past five years have been harmful to them as a party and to the nation.

It's pure and simple politics. And the actions and rhetoric coming from the Democratic party has been any better?

The blame game has to stop. Why can the President of the United States not be able to pick up the phone, call a meeting of the leaders of Congress, get in a room, and work through some of the issues at hand? I will tell you. He does not have the capacity to do it. He has no leadership or consensus building in his body. He doesn't know how to do it. He never had to do it. He is suppossed to be the leader of the free world.... not the three year old at the day care center that is mad because Johnny got his toy. And the leaders of the Republican party are no different.

For God's sake... will someone in this country run for President and Congress that can actually lead?

 

[connor_in]

Go-

Where do you stop? What is the tipping point? (This springs to mind a lot when reading Krugman BTW)

Let's raise minimum wage to $12? $15? $18? $25? $40? $ 50?

Let's increase food stamps $100 more a month? $200? $500?

Unemployment benefits 101 weeks? 120 weeks? 3 years? 5 years?

Spending on ACA...add another trillion a year? 10 trillion?

Spending on "stimulus" another 9 trillion? 20?

Where does it stop? The debt limit is a LIMIT, its part of the term. A limit is where you are supposed to stop and not go beyond. If you keep going past the limit (especially every 3 months or so), then you have a problem and you need to stop and change things. Raising the debt limit alone does not increase spending, correct. But what it does is make it OK to keep spending because now we have room to.

You talked about default if we don't raise the limit. What's going to happen if we just keep raising it willy nilly? Also, as someone pointed out again, SENATOR Obama was all over W as failed leadership for having to raise it. Where was your current rationale for raising it then? Where will it be in the future if an R wins the White House and wants to do (much less ever 3-6 months of their term)? I didn't like it when W did it. I don't like it when Obama does it? I don't want a future president to do it, unless it is at least part of the implementation of an overall plan with a set stopping point. These have simply been stop-gap measures.

Please help me to understand where it stops. Because we may default if we don't increase the limit (but there are those who argue that with the amount of revenue/taxes taken in we could still continue to operate without defaulting for a while). But we will surely default if we keep spending more and more and more and the interest alone eats up more than we take in.

(PS: By the way, I wouldn't necessarily throw cyurrent R leadership back in R faces, because many of the R's would gladly see them go away as they don't adhere to many of the spending limits people want anyway. Also, how can it be that the R's just keep moving things further right, but yet you point out that they agree to continue spending like drunken sailors?)

 

[Ndaccountant]

You would have to ask him to tell you what he meant when he said he got 98% of what he wanted. I am taking his comments at face value. He didn't say he gave anything up along the way. He said 98%. He is a politician, and I understand spin, but you also have to be held to what you say, and to a larger extent, what your actions are. The actions and rhetoric of the republican party over the past five years have been harmful to them as a party and to the nation.

Being held to what you say.....why do you hold Boehner accountable for that but not Obama? What happened to holding people accountable for health care roll-out, just to bring up one example?

Look, politicians are interested in public perception, which is what drives elections. Taking words and actions in a literal sense only leads to increased hysteria. If anyone is hanging on to every quote, we would have an endless list of 180's and contradictions. Both sides are guilty.

 

[connor_in]

Actually, I think eventually the Tea Party would break off into a third party if they didn't need the support of the Republican establishment. Those two entities are clearly not on the same page in almost every case, but they put up with one another because they share a hatred for the Dems. I also would not dismiss the prospect of Rand Paul branching out into a libertarian party when he is snuffed out by the republicans in the next presidential election cycle. Of course, that will just mean he will peal off more votes from republican candidates, thereby ensuring a Dem (Hillary) wins the election.

This is a chunk of the problem right here. I do not HATE D's. Most of the R's I know do not HATE D's (all and always are two VERY BIG words and I generally try to avoid them, but will slip out occasionally). At the same time, while I generally believe, as a fellow human being, that the opposite is probably usually true, the sheer vitriol when referring to Tea Party R's is unlike anything I have seen. (Especially when the ones doing the attacking are generally thought of , by themselves of course, the big tent party of tolerance.)

PS: Your next post after this one referred to taking Boehner at face value for his comments? Do you do the same with this administration? If so, why do you back it when there are so many campaign promises that haven't appeared to be followed up on, believe you could keep your current insurance and your doctor, have not produced much despite multiple pivots to "laser-like" focus on jobs and the economy?

 

[GoIrish41]

Being held to what you say.....why do you hold Boehner accountable for that but not Obama? What happened to holding people accountable for health care roll-out, just to bring up one example?

Look, politicians are interested in public perception, which is what drives elections. Taking words and actions in a literal sense only leads to increased hysteria. If anyone is hanging on to every quote, we would have an endless list of 180's and contradictions. Both sides are guilty.

The healthcare roll-out was disgraceful and terribly managed. No getting around that. That, however, does not mean that the law is a complete failure. I believe the GOP should have been able to capitalize on the mismanagement if not for their complete obsession with getting rid of the law that led up to the roll-out. Words and actions are all we have NdA. If not for that, what do we have as a measuring stick for our elected officials? If politicians on both sides would be forced by the public to be more honest and straightforward, we wouldn't be bickering and this thread would have ended at around 200 posts.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The healthcare roll-out was disgraceful and terribly managed. No getting around that. That, however, does not mean that the law is a complete failure. I believe the GOP should have been able to capitalize on the mismanagement if not for their complete obsession with getting rid of the law that led up to the roll-out. Words and actions are all we have NdA. If not for that, what do we have as a measuring stick for our elected officials? If politicians on both sides would be forced by the public to be more honest and straightforward, we wouldn't be bickering and this thread would have ended at around 200 posts.

The merits of the law is not what I am talking about.

If you say you hold people accountable for their words, do you think the President should be held accountable for the following:

1. He also defended his management style when asked if he would change anything in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. "I'm holding every cabinet member accountable, and I want to have strong interactions with them directly," he said, adding, "I have an open door policy, where I want people to be bringing me bad news, on time, so that we can fix things."

Accountable? I have yet to see one shred of evidence where someone was held accountable. If this would happen in the private sector, heads would roll.

2. What about this before the NSA fiasco.

"What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they're not abused is because they're - these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law, and would be against the orders of the FISC," Obama said last Friday

Yet, there are thousands of abuses, intentional or not. These are reported to the Senate Committee chaired by Dianne Feinstein. Any accountability handed out there?

3. The pledge to bring Benghazi attackers to justice? Where is the accountability there?

My point isn't to bad-mouth the President. It is to point out that if you hold Boehner accountable for his words, then you must do the same for the President.

Personally, I just don't listen to either because anything coming from Washington is generally horse shit regardless of whose mouth it is spewed from.

 

[phgreek]

The merits of the law is not what I am talking about.

If you say you hold people accountable for their words, do you think the President should be held accountable for the following:

1. He also defended his management style when asked if he would change anything in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. "I'm holding every cabinet member accountable, and I want to have strong interactions with them directly," he said, adding, "I have an open door policy, where I want people to be bringing me bad news, on time, so that we can fix things."

Accountable? I have yet to see one shred of evidence where someone was held accountable. If this would happen in the private sector, heads would roll.

2. What about this before the NSA fiasco.

"What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they're not abused is because they're - these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law, and would be against the orders of the FISC," Obama said last Friday

Yet, there are thousands of abuses, intentional or not. These are reported to the Senate Committee chaired by Dianne Feinstein. Any accountability handed out there?

3. The pledge to bring Benghazi attackers to justice? Where is the accountability there?

My point isn't to bad-mouth the President. It is to point out that if you hold Boehner accountable for his words, then you must do the same for the President.

Personally, I just don't listen to either because anything coming from Washington is generally horse shit regardless of whose mouth it is spewed from.

Can't wait to see how this response goes...usually blind faith ends with an Amen, so I'll be looking for that...

 

[GoIrish41]

Go-

Where do you stop? What is the tipping point? (This springs to mind a lot when reading Krugman BTW)

Let's raise minimum wage to $12? $15? $18? $25? $40? $ 50?

Let's increase food stamps $100 more a month? $200? $500?

Unemployment benefits 101 weeks? 120 weeks? 3 years? 5 years?

Spending on ACA...add another trillion a year? 10 trillion?

Spending on "stimulus" another 9 trillion? 20?

Where does it stop? The debt limit is a LIMIT, its part of the term. A limit is where you are supposed to stop and not go beyond. If you keep going past the limit (especially every 3 months or so), then you have a problem and you need to stop and change things. Raising the debt limit alone does not increase spending, correct. But what it does is make it OK to keep spending because now we have room to.

You talked about default it we don't raise the limit. What's going to happen if we just keep raising it willy nilly? Also, as someone pointed out again, SENATOR Obama was all over W as failed leadership for having to raise it. Where was your current rationale for raising it then? Where will it be in the future if an R wins the White House and wants to do (much less ever 3-6 months of their term)? I didn't like it when W did it. I don't like it when Obama does it? I don't want a future president to do it, unless it is at least part of the implementation of an overall plan. These have simply been stop-gap measures.

Please help me to understand where it stops. Because we may default if we don't increase the limit (but there are those who argue that with the amount of revenue/taxes taken inwe could still continue to operate without defaulting for a while). But we will surely default if we keep spending more and more and more and the interest alone eats up more than we take in.

(PS: By the way, I wouldn't necessarily throw cyurrent R leadership back in R faces, because many of the R's would gladly see them go away as they don't adhere to many of the spending limits people want anyway. Also, how can it be that the R's just keep moving things further right, but yet you point out that they agree to continue spending like drunken sailors?)

It is a valid question to ask where does it stop. However, all of the things you listed in the front of your post have nothing to do with the debt limit. Laws about the minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment benefits, the Affordable Care Act, and stimulus spending are all looked at separately by Congress. The extent to which they "agree" on a legislative approach to any of these means that they have agreed to spend the money. Once the money is spent, it is reckless to threaten not to pay the bills. Go out a buy a new car and then make a decision not to pay the bill and see what happens to your credit rating. It is just plain irresponsibility on top of irresponsibility to do this. The answer is not spending the money in the first place or raising more money so you can afford the car. It is not a sin to raise taxes to generate more revenue. That is the responsible thing to do. It is disingenuous to come in at the end of the event and claim to be the fiscally responsible party because you are refusing to pay the bill that you, as a legislature, have already spent. It's simple political grandstanding, especially when you know that those peers with more sensibility and control will come in and save you from yourself by coming to an 11th hour agreement that averts the disaster that you helped to create by inventing this issue.

Minimum wage: Wouldn't cost the government a dime. In fact, it would expand the tax base so that more money would come into the treasury to pay the bills. It is high time that the government stopped subsidising the corporatations' workforces, providing money to make up for the fact that they don't pay their people enough to earn a living, even though they are working every day. How much is enough ... how about the point at which full-time workers hit the bottom of the scale for a living wage and stop having to rely on the government to make ends meet when the deck is stacked against them.

The purpose of food stamps is to ensure that the poor in our population are able to feed themselves. Prices rise at a rate that far outstrips the amount of food stamps. And, as I said in the point above, many who receive these funds are the working poor, and if they could just make enough to feed themselves, this program would shrink dramatically. I don't know what the numbers are anymore, but I do know that when Sam Walton passed away and divided his vast wealth among his family members, those 7 people were all listed on the list of 10 richest people. Yet, these companies receive a tremendous subsidy from the US government in the form of the government program like food stamps to keep their workforce fed. Why do we, as a country, not insist that companies pay their workforce enough to survive while those who run these companies grow fat on subsidized labor? How much is enough? When the amount such programs begins to approach the amount the government provides to corporation handouts, we can talk. Until then, while people are starving, what we are doing now is not enough.

Unemployment benefits: The purpose of this benefit is to fill a gap in earnings caused by job loss. It is part of a social safety net, which, if not there, would have catastrophic consequences not only for the individuals who rely on them, but also for the economy as a whole. How much is enough? Let's do a cost benefit analysis to figure out what hurts the economy more -- people who become destitute because their company can pay slave wages to get their products made in overseas factories, or providing tax breaks to companies who abandon their workers in favor of a little more profit. Should we go with the economy suffering because people are suffering, or provide unemployment benefits to not only prop up deserving families who lost their jobs, but also the entire econmy.

Spending on ACA...add another trillion a year? 10 trillion?
The ACA is designed to save money and get more people insured. It is a system that includes private companies as partners in providing a service that has become more and more important as healthcare costs are more and more expensive. Last week, a study suggested that, because many Americans were just working so they could have access to healthcare through their jobs, as many as two million may soon exit the workforce to retire and take advantage of Obamacare to help them do so. That is 2 million people who are now looking for work that may now be able to find a job. Of course, that was spun as a negative by the GOP. I'm not an ACA fan or even an apologist (I don't think it goes far enough), but I'm willing to give it some time to see how it works before passing judgment before the enrollment period is even over. How much is enough? Lets wait and see what the value comes out to be -- not skewed estimates but the actual value -- before we decide on that. If it fails, I will say it failed and will push for a single payer option. Until then, I reserve judgment.

Spending on "stimulus". I think one thing is clear -- we didn't spend enough to really kickstart the economy like it needed to be kickstarted. It did save the auto industry and stabalize the banking system, however. Who knows what kind of insanity we'd be dealing with today if those two major contributions hadn't taken hold? How much is enough? We'll know it when we see it I suppose ... that is if we ever get our heads out of our asses in time to do what we KNOW works.

No matter the fiscal conservative blather about less spending, they spend money as least as much as their democrat peers -- they just don't spend it as much on anything that is in the true interest of the country over the long hall. I will use the starting of the Iraq war on a dishonest premise as an example. How much did that cost the country? How about tax cuts for the rich? If that money will naturally trickle down, why are we in such an unemployment hole right now? Fact of the matter, if the republican establishment (whom I agree with very infrequently) was not in place, leaving the new order in that party to their own devices, the GOP would absolutley destroy itself. The old guard is the only think keeping any coherence in their rhetoric, to the extent that they are not afraid of being primaries by tea party candidates with more extreme ideas.

 

[GoIrish41]

The merits of the law is not what I am talking about.

If you say you hold people accountable for their words, do you think the President should be held accountable for the following:

1. He also defended his management style when asked if he would change anything in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. "I'm holding every cabinet member accountable, and I want to have strong interactions with them directly," he said, adding, "I have an open door policy, where I want people to be bringing me bad news, on time, so that we can fix things."

Accountable? I have yet to see one shred of evidence where someone was held accountable. If this would happen in the private sector, heads would roll.

2. What about this before the NSA fiasco.

"What you're hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. Now part of the reason they're not abused is because they're - these checks are in place, and those abuses would be against the law, and would be against the orders of the FISC," Obama said last Friday

Yet, there are thousands of abuses, intentional or not. These are reported to the Senate Committee chaired by Dianne Feinstein. Any accountability handed out there?

3. The pledge to bring Benghazi attackers to justice? Where is the accountability there?

My point isn't to bad-mouth the President. It is to point out that if you hold Boehner accountable for his words, then you must do the same for the President.

Personally, I just don't listen to either because anything coming from Washington is generally horse shit regardless of whose mouth it is spewed from.

I hold the president accountable for his words. I believe there should be more public accountability when there are failures. I spoke about the ACA rollout in an earlier post and said it was disgraceful. I believe his drone policy is an abomination. I'm just not sure this board needs any more haymaker swipes at the president than he is already getting. lol. I've said throughout this thread many times, that I am not a big Obama fan. I think backs down to easy to the Republicans and abandons his own principals at times in order to seek middle ground. That said, it is the complete opposite that many of you are saying in this thread over the past day or so. You think he wants to work against the system and I call complete BS to that. His failure is that he caves to easy to GOP demands. It is why is popularity is fading in the public, IMHO. Not because of NSA or Benghazi, but because he isn't talking strenuously enough about his jobs plan, or immigration reform, or gun control, or any of a number of other platform issues that he ran on. The question is why? I think the reason is because obstructionism works. But, the GOP will eventually pay for this tactic IMO.

 

[chicago51]

This president is NOT a moderate republican in any timeframe. He isn't even a moderate Democrat. He isn't moderate...in any way.

Lets compare shall we.

1) Taxes (Inflation adjusted will top, middle, and floor rates for space purposes)

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

Obama:
Top Rate: Married 441k, Single 392k: 39.6% (Those over 250k pay extra 0.9% Medicare tax)
High Income Capital Gains Married 250k, Single 200k - 20% (plus new Obamacare 3.8% Medicare tax which is the same as the income Medicare tax)
Middle Rates: Married 143k Single 86k - 28% Married 71k, Single 35.5k - 25%
Floor Rate: 10% up to 17k for married, 8.5k for Single

Reagan (We'll go to 1988 the year Reagan's final tax bracket was passed into law, also increased SS that year to today's rates):
Top Rate:Married over 57k, Single over 34k - 28%
Bottom Rate: 15%
Capital Gains rates were the same

Kennedy/LBJ (We'll use 1965 the year after it was passed into law in 1964, also same year Medicare was passed. SS was half of what it was today):
Top Rate: Married 1.4 million, Single 729k: 70%
High Capital Gains Rate: Don't have the data I believe it was 52% not sure of the cutoff point. I believe LBJ/Kennedy bill raised the capital gains rates along while cutting the income rates.
Middle Rates:
22.0% Married: $58,310-$87,464 Single: $29,155-$43,732
25.0% Married: $87,464-$116,619 Single: $43,732-$58,310
28.0% Married: $116,619-$145,774 Single: $58,310-$72,887
Bottom Rates:
14.0% Married: $0 - $7,289 14.0% Single: $0 - $3,644
15.0% Married: $7,289 - $14,577 Single: $3,644 - $7,289

So if my math serves me correct Obama is much closer to Reagan's tax numbers than Kennedy/LBJ's.

So Obama is closer to Reaganomics than pre Reaganomics.

Issue # 2: Free Trade

Obama: Yes
Reagan: Yes (free trade basically started under Nixon but exploded under Reagan)
LBJ/Kennedy: Used Tarriffs

Again still in Reaganomics

Issue # 3: Social Safety Net

Reagan did believe in Medicaid, but want to cut other Social Safety Net spending. In this area Obama is more simular to LBJ.

What has actually happened though under the Obama adminstration has been a fixed bag while Obamacare dramatically expanded the safety net. The lack of Medicaid expansion in states hurt it. Also we've seen cuts to Medicare (although it was more effeciency related) and food stamps under the Obama administration.

I wouldn't say we our out of Reaganomics although we've pushed away from it.

Issue #4:

Education:
Obama policy wise much more simular to Kennedy/LBJ (the former who campaigned on building new schools from the revenue generate from closing tax loopholes). College assistant has increased under Obama mostly through tax credits.

Although it is a far cry from the pre Reagan days were the cost of sending a student to a state college was subsidized by the government (on all levels) 80% as opposed to 20% in today. Which started under Reagan when he cut the education budget from 12% to 6%. University of California was a free college until Reagan became governor and cut the funding because he didn't like the hippi attitude that developed on college campus. Lots of governors followed his example.

As a nation we have not reached pre Reagan status in terms of the cost of higher education.

Issue # 5: Regulation of Trust

Before Reagan we had no Wal Marts and other giant companies because we enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act. Since Reagan no President including Clinton, and Obama have enforced it.

Issue #6: Banking

Because of the issue # 5 prior to Reagan we didn't have any "too big to fail" banks. Obama did nothing to these the institutions that helped cause the financial crisis.

Also we deregulated all the banking rules under Reagan as well as Clinton. Glass Steagall used to seperate heavy gambling investment banking from personal banking (mortage, checking, savings, etc) but that was ended by Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

So when you through this issues and compare Presidents but more importantly compare the actual policy that is enacted right now and we are clearly still in a Reagan economy not a pre Reagan economy. The 2013 for better or worse is still a product of Reaganomics and Obama/Bill Clinton/ Bush Sr/Bush Jr are not all that much different economically from one another. To be honest the Clinton economy was largely based on luck of the .com bubble and Bush Jr economy was based largely on being President when the some the bubbles like .com bubble and housing bubble burst. Yes Bill Clinton raised taxes a little but most of the President's since Reagan have all been simular.

There are other issues but I think these are the main economic issues. It is probably social issues and foreign policy where you would see more differences. Economically regardless of what an indvidual President may have wanted we have been enacting Reagan policies for 33 years.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Lets compare shall we.

1) Taxes (Inflation adjusted will top, middle, and floor rates for space purposes)

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

Obama:
Top Rate: Married 441k, Single 392k: 39.6% (Those over 250k pay extra 0.9% Medicare tax)
High Income Capital Gains Married 250k, Single 200k - 20% (plus new Obamacare 3.8% Medicare tax which is the same as the income Medicare tax)
Middle Rates: Married 143k Single 86k - 28% Married 71k, Single 35.5k - 25%
Floor Rate: 10% up to 17k for married, 8.5k for Single

Reagan (We'll go to 1988 the year Reagan's final tax bracket was passed into law, also increased SS that year to today's rates):
Top Rate:Married over 57k, Single over 34k - 28%
Bottom Rate: 15%
Capital Gains rates were the same

Kennedy/LBJ (We'll use 1965 the year after it was passed into law in 1964, also same year Medicare was passed. SS was half of what it was today):
Top Rate: Married 1.4 million, Single 729k: 70%
High Capital Gains Rate: Don't have the data I believe it was 52% not sure of the cutoff point. I believe LBJ/Kennedy bill raised the capital gains rates along while cutting the income rates.
Middle Rates:
22.0% Married: $58,310-$87,464 Single: $29,155-$43,732
25.0% Married: $87,464-$116,619 Single: $43,732-$58,310
28.0% Married: $116,619-$145,774 Single: $58,310-$72,887
Bottom Rates:
14.0% Married: $0 - $7,289 14.0% Single: $0 - $3,644
15.0% Married: $7,289 - $14,577 Single: $3,644 - $7,289

So if my math serves me correct Obama is much closer to Reagan's tax numbers than Kennedy/LBJ's.

So Obama is closer to Reaganomics than pre Reaganomics.

Issue # 2: Free Trade

Obama: Yes
Reagan: Yes (free trade basically started under Nixon but exploded under Reagan)
LBJ/Kennedy: Used Tarriffs

Again still in Reaganomics

Issue # 3: Social Safety Net

Reagan did believe in Medicaid, but want to cut other Social Safety Net spending. In this area Obama is more simular to LBJ.

What has actually happened though under the Obama adminstration has been a fixed bag while Obamacare dramatically expanded the safety net. The lack of Medicaid expansion in states hurt it. Also we've seen cuts to Medicare (although it was more effeciency related) and food stamps under the Obama administration.

I wouldn't say we our out of Reaganomics although we've pushed away from it.

Issue #4:

Education:
Obama policy wise much more simular to Kennedy/LBJ (the former who campaigned on building new schools from the revenue generate from closing tax loopholes). College assistant has increased under Obama mostly through tax credits.

Although it is a far cry from the pre Reagan days were the cost of sending a student to a state college was subsidized by the government (on all levels) 80% as opposed to 20% in today. Which started under Reagan when he cut the education budget from 12% to 6%. University of California was a free college until Reagan became governor and cut the funding because he didn't like the hippi attitude that developed on college campus. Lots of governors followed his example.

As a nation we have not reached pre Reagan status in terms of the cost of higher education.

Issue # 5: Regulation of Trust

Before Reagan we had no Wal Marts and other giant companies because we enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act. Since Reagan no President including Clinton, and Obama have enforced it.

Issue #6: Banking

Because of the issue # 5 prior to Reagan we didn't have any "too big to fail" banks. Obama did nothing to these the institutions that helped cause the financial crisis.

Also we deregulated all the banking rules under Reagan as well as Clinton. Glass Steagall used to seperate heavy gambling investment banking from personal banking (mortage, checking, savings, etc) but that was ended by Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

So when you through this issues and compare Presidents but more importantly compare the actual policy that is enacted right now and we are clearly still in a Reagan economy not a pre Reagan economy. The 2013 for better or worse is still a product of Reaganomics and Obama/Bill Clinton/ Bush Sr/Bush Jr are not all that much different economically from one another. To be honest the Clinton economy was largely based on luck of the .com bubble and Bush Jr economy was based largely on being President when the some the bubbles like .com bubble and housing bubble burst. Yes Bill Clinton raised taxes a little but most of the President's since Reagan have all been simular.

There are other issues but I think these are the main economic issues. It is probably social issues and foreign policy where you would see more differences. Economically regardless of what an indvidual President may have wanted we have been enacting Reagan policies for 33 years.

Shouldn't this be compared to what they have done in office? For example, simply taking the existing tax rate and comparing doesn't take into consideration where the rates were prior to them coming in office. From that perspective, Obama has raised taxes.

As it relates to free trade, what was Obama supposed to do? Reverse everything that has been done up to this point? Also, free trade is much more common place today than what it was previously. So, a simple comparison really doesn't say much at all. To me, it is more a referendum on the current marketplace.

 

[chicago51]

Go-

Where do you stop? What is the tipping point? (This springs to mind a lot when reading Krugman BTW)

Let's raise minimum wage to $12? $15? $18? $25? $40? $ 50?

Let's increase food stamps $100 more a month? $200? $500?

Unemployment benefits 101 weeks? 120 weeks? 3 years? 5 years?

Spending on ACA...add another trillion a year? 10 trillion?

Spending on "stimulus" another 9 trillion? 20?

Where does it stop? The debt limit is a LIMIT, its part of the term. A limit is where you are supposed to stop and not go beyond. If you keep going past the limit (especially every 3 months or so), then you have a problem and you need to stop and change things. Raising the debt limit alone does not increase spending, correct. But what it does is make it OK to keep spending because now we have room to.

You talked about default if we don't raise the limit. What's going to happen if we just keep raising it willy nilly? Also, as someone pointed out again, SENATOR Obama was all over W as failed leadership for having to raise it. Where was your current rationale for raising it then? Where will it be in the future if an R wins the White House and wants to do (much less ever 3-6 months of their term)? I didn't like it when W did it. I don't like it when Obama does it? I don't want a future president to do it, unless it is at least part of the implementation of an overall plan with a set stopping point. These have simply been stop-gap measures.

Please help me to understand where it stops. Because we may default if we don't increase the limit (but there are those who argue that with the amount of revenue/taxes taken in we could still continue to operate without defaulting for a while). But we will surely default if we keep spending more and more and more and the interest alone eats up more than we take in.

(PS: By the way, I wouldn't necessarily throw cyurrent R leadership back in R faces, because many of the R's would gladly see them go away as they don't adhere to many of the spending limits people want anyway. Also, how can it be that the R's just keep moving things further right, but yet you point out that they agree to continue spending like drunken sailors?)

The Republicans (at least post Nixon one's) spend because they have a two fold strategy for destroying the social safety net (MC, Medicaid, SS, etc) which is politically toxic for them as a national party. The plan though is to force Democrats to cut those programs. Strategy for them is to run up the national debt when in office to help the economy to get reelected for one, but also for part 2. Then when the Democrat is is office (as things invetibably go back and fourth) you yell and scream about the national debt. The Republicans usually one big debts usually from military spending and then complain when a Democrat takes over the presidency. This already worked as Clinton cut Medicare, and radically changed welfare pretty much ending it as we know it.

Google conservative writer in the 1970s Jude Wanniski and the two santa clause theory. He his worked pretty much sparked the Reagan Revolution.