Should Congress vote to raise the US debt limit?

[Bill Peckham]

Congress is facing a technical vote - to raise the debt ceiling. For this fiscal year expenditures are slated to run ahead of revenues by about 3 to 2 - for every two dollars we take in in taxes we are spending 3 dollars. In order for this to work the US Treasury has to borrow money on our behalf but Constitutionally the Congress - Senate and House - has to authorize the borrowing first by raising our debt limit.

The US House has a Republican majority (spending bills, including the debt increase authorization, have to originate in the House) that is talking about not authorizing the debt ceiling increase or authorizing it only after the Senate (and the administration) agrees to include unspecified spending cuts with the authorization. The problem with the threat to not authorize the debt ceiling increase is that default would cause so many problems that the House probably won't be able to carry through on their threat of inaction. If the threat isn't credible there is no reason to discuss it, the House will have to act.

So with that background I read Senator Toomey's OpEd in Friday's WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089963912388314.html

Toomey is proposing his legislation to prevent default if the debt ceiling isn't raised, which if nothing else suggests that he thinks the House Republicans will follow through on their threat to not raise the debt ceiling. There appear to be some big issues with Toomey's proposed fix but he raises the basic question:

Should Congress raise the debt ceiling without conditions?

I say yes. Toomey writes "But it would be even worse simply to raise the debt ceiling without regaining control of federal spending." I think this is the core disagreement. I say we have control of our spending. We are sentient humans, with free will - the House Republicans could go through the well trod budget process and propose what ever level of spending they're comfortable with but of course that process, the hearings and reports, will reveal that cutting spending below 19% is very hard. I think the House Republicans see this ploy as an easy shortcut, a way to get their pet cuts through without the messiness of the legislative process.

I think this is a mistake and that in order to make the hard choices the country faces between tax and spending the Congress should have to go through their legislative process. It should be hard.

[paul.karen]

The debt limit has to be raised.
There will be promises of cuts.  Hopefully they will take hold and do what is right.
One of OOboma pledges over two years ago was to go through the books line by line and cut waste.  Well we are still waiting.  I think alot of Americans can see waste all over the place.  To bad politicians cant see it.

Along with cuts in budgets we need Uniions all of them to start taking some concessions.  Funny how they would rather there members be fired (less cash for the union) then to pay a tiny fraction into there pensions and healthcare funds.  The union members many i have spoken to are willing to take these steps.  But the unions say NO.  While there membership gets smaller and smaller.  Bad sensless politics.

If we dont raise the debt limit wont we loose our triple A rating?

Both sides need to do what is right for the country.  Will they??

[Bill Peckham]

Now this issue is coming down to the wire and if anything it appears the two parties are more entrenched against each other. Potentially this is a huge problem for people who use dialysis - there is the risk that our care won't be reimbursed for a while but I think everyone would believe that eventually the bills would be paid so I doubt this would interrupt our care. The bigger risk in my opinion would be a compromise that gave in to republican demands for cuts. For instance Medicaid cuts that are proposed that would end Medicaid payment secondary to Medicare.

Medicaid is the least well politically defended of the fed's health spending and this cut would reduce Medicaid spending by a great deal so I think the Republicans believe that at a minimum this is the sort of cut they'd need to vote for anything. Even putting aside their objection to anything that nets more revenue, given this negotiating posture - hostage taking an extortion - I think the best way forward is to rely on the 14th Amendment. I would support the administration if it took the position that not raising the debt limit is unconstitutional thus the administration can spend beyond what was previously authorized.

[Willis]

The debt limit has to be raised. ... If we dont raise the debt limit wont we loose our triple A rating?

The scaremongers are saying this and also that we will default on our debt. No, this is like when my City Council needs to cut its budget and the first thing they always trumpet on the news is how they will have to cut libraries, schools, and public safety. It's just demagoguery. In the end, in those rare times when they don't get their way and actually do have to cut the budget, none of these cuts are ever made. They somehow find a way to fund these vital services and cut the less important ones. But if they tried to justify raising taxes for a bigger budget by trumpeting about how important it was to raise the salaries of the bureaucratic minions they wouldn't be able to get everyone "riled up."

The U.S. government has plenty of income to service the debt, pay the military, pay Social Security/Medicare, and other essential services. The 2010 breakdown was Social Security 19.6%, Military 18.7%, Medicare 12.8%, Medicaid 8.2%, and interest on the National Debt just 4.6%. That means those budget items could remain untouched (whether they should or not is another issue) and then there would still be 36% of the budget that could face cuts. That does put the budget-makers in a serious quandary, but it doesn't automatically mean we will default on our debt.

Failing to raise the debt limit means ONLY that the government could not issue more debt net of any debt that is retired. As long as the interest on the Federal debt is payed first (remember, it's merely 4.6%), then there is no default. The rest of the pie can then go to everything else--it's just that the pie will finally stop growing unceasingly and some really hard decisions will have to be made. (Just like every family in America has to do when the paycheck doesn't cover the outgo.)

 

[Hemodoc]

A little more than 30 years ago we were the largest creditor nation in the world and we have flipped to become the largest debtor nation in the world by far.  If anyone thinks that we can continue to spend on borrowed money, that is simply nuts. Look out Greece, wait till America begins to default not just because of the upcoming debt ceiling vote, just the trend of an out of control government hell bent on putting us over the edge. That in the long run will be the biggest danger to dialysis patients when the system itself breaks. If we think that raising the taxes on the rich will cure out of control spending, that makes even less sense since it will only send more jobs over seas reducing tax revenues in the long and short run. Perhaps one day, we can look at historical data for what is the right way to proceed.

[MooseMom]

@Hemodoc, no one thinks our financial woes are going to be solved only by raising taxes on the rich.  But let's talk seriously about closing some of those tax loopholes.  And how about farm subsidies...let's cut those.  Most families who have budgetary woes look at both sides of the equation, ie  spending and revenue.  Loads of families not only cut back on what they spend, but they also take on extra work to increase revenue. Maybe they start charging rent from their college aged kid who lives in the basement.  Maybe mom goes out to work now that the kids are grown.  Maybe dad puts in for extra hours.  Why can't the gov't do the same?  Why do people like John Boehner insist that the only vehicle through which we can balance the budget is to cut spending?  That seems so inefficient.

I balk at statements declaring that the government is "hell bent" on "taking us over the edge."  Are you saying that Congress is working now and has been working in the past toward reducing the USA to penury?  That's an extraordinary statement.

@willis, I don't know about you, but I live in a town where we have definitely seen the results of cutbacks and not just "demogoguery."  My husband is a city attorney and has had to personally lay off scores of city workers because of budgetary problems.  We live at the end of a cul-de-sac, and for two years, our town has had to cut back on de-icing the roads during the winter because of the cost of salt, so getting onto the main road is treacherous.  Don't even think about walking; I've slipped several times on the ice.  We have a local organization called AID, Association for Individual Development, which is a state sponsored charity that helps disabled adults in housing and employment.  They've lost a million dollars of funding.  Only now has my brother-in-law found appropriate housing; he is 45 years old.  Such cuts may not affect you, but it certainly affects a lot of people who have no voice.

[MooseMom]

Oh, and btw, how about ending tax-exempt status for churches/religious groups?

[Hemodoc]

Oh, and btw, how about ending tax-exempt status for churches/religious groups?

Sure, just as soon as we do the same for all 501c3 tax exempt corporations. Will that save America?  In the health care realm, it is the tax exempt corporations such as Kaiser which offer the best outcomes and value for our money.  Getting rid of churches and non-profits ain't going to solve our ghastly spending and welfare mentality in this nation. At one time, America had common values of hard work and taking care of our own, but not anymore. We are in many ways already in a worse financial mess than Greece, it is just that no one has yet called in our chips yet.

I would point out that the money that I give to my church is already out of monies on which I have paid the taxes, nor do I claim a tax exemption for them as I am allowed but decline.  I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's and I don't ask Caesar to subsidize what I have given to God. Our pastor spends a great deal of time working to support his family since the church is too small at this time to give him a full time salary, nor does he have any health insurance for himself or his family.  What part of making this church a taxable institution is going to help save America?  Sadly, few folks understand the reason why no one in this nation until 1984 taxed any part of the church. In short, up until Ronald Reagan on January 1, 1984 began withholding social security taxes, this nation had believed taxing the churches was taxing God from whom we gather our blessings. Obviously, that is the minority view at this point. I readily wonder why so many people continual call upon God to bless America when at the same time they run away from God and His decrees. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, I do believe our government is hell bent on bankrupting this nation just as all prior democracies over the history of democracy have so done when the voters realize that they can vote to raid the treasury.  That is why our founding fathers refused to engage a democracy, choosing a republic which is based on the rule of the law, not on the rule of the majority as we have today. Anything short of balancing our budget and cap spending will fail to solve our insolvency.  Spending 42 cents of every dollar that is borrowed is just an astonishing testimony to how far we have gone off the deep end already. I am actually quite pessimistic that Washington D.C has the courage to do what is needed to bring the situation to an acceptable outcome. Collapse of the system is a much greater danger than any so called Republican spending cuts.  Folks have quickly forgotten the $500 Billion in Medicare cuts from the so called Affordable Care Act.  Sorry, but I am quite pessimistic that America any longer has the common values needed to overcome this mess we are in from lavish spending over the last 100 years.  Continuing on the same course will eventually be much more painful than taking the bull by the horns and making the corrections needed today. If folks believe that we can tax and spend our way to prosperity, good luck is all I have to say to that approach.

[Willis]

@willis, I don't know about you, but I live in a town where we have definitely seen the results of cutbacks and not just "demogoguery."

I certainly didn't mean to imply that there haven't been cutbacks in services. What I meant by the demogoguery statement is that politicians on both sides always cast things in the worst possible light when pushing for things like tax increases. That gets their base riled up and hitting the phones. Then they pretend to compromise, falling back to their original (secret) position, and claim victory for saving the schools (or whatever) that were never in danger in the first place.

We are seeing that now for example when discussing Rep Ryan's plan. It's getting "demogouged" to death. No one else has been brave enough to just say, look here, I've drawn up a plan--not a law--let's just start the discussion. But then opponents of Ryan's party don't offer their own plans or even bullet points to discuss. Rather, they get on Meet the Press and lie about the plan, saying things like those evil Republicans want to take away senior's Medicare and Social Security. But that's not in the plan. The proposed changes will not and do not effect ANYONE already on Medicare or Social Security or those older than 55.. It's only talking about how to change the programs for those NOT YET on these programs. To say otherwise is demogoguery (or a less polite way to say that...B.S.)

Then we have the old Washington trick of automatic budget increases. So say HHS has a program that provides heating-fuel subsidies to the aged that has a 10% annual automatic kicker. But some brave Member of Congress proposes that we stop the kicker and only raise the program's budget by 5%. Then the screams come out: YOU'RE CUTTING THE BUDGET! YOU'RE FORCING OLD PEOPLE OUT ON THE STREET SO THEY CAN FREEZE!!" But nothing is being CUT, they are getting a 5% INCREASE. Only in Washington can that be called a "cut." More professionally polished political B.S.

I think, if things were so great, say in 1998, why don't we just tell EVERY department in the Federal Government to pull out their 1998 budget, apply an inflation factor perhaps, and insist they make it based on that amount. If Bush and Obama have really screwed things up so bad, let's just print up a little fiscal time machine and start over.

 

 

[Rerun]

@MM  And how about farm subsidies...let's cut those.

Cutting the people who feed us and the world is not the way to go.  If we truly have a depression like before we won't have the small farms of the 30's to fall back on.  We would starve.  Cutting off the farmers we have left is not that answer.   You think food prices are high now...... just wait.

I saw a thing on the news on how this family was being cut Medicaid.....  they were watching a big screen TV and I counted 3 cell phones.  Your tax dollar at work. 

Seriously, we have a long way to go to be poor.  If we have another depression I think we will all have SHOES.... 7 pair each!

Just no food.

My friend went down South to help with the Red Cross and floods and ended up going home because all the CHURCHES and FAITH BASED Organizations were already there and helping.  Giving and Giving and Giving.

[Bill Peckham]

Wow there is a lot to unpack here. If there wasn't so much at stake it would be interesting watching it unfold but there is a lot at stake, which is why I think the smart way forward is to take the 14th Amendment option. There is no provision in law for the Treasury to pay some bills and not others. Money we owe is due to previously passed legislation and is a contractual obligation. Willis I think your numbers are off but aside from that revenue does not come in proportionally throughout the year - it comes in waves and the big April wave has passed.

Here is a summary of the Ryan proposal:

Medicare

• Prevent a scheduled 29.5% Medicare physician pay cut from occurring in 2012 and prevent further pay cuts through 2021. The plan does not specify how to pay for the changes.
• Close enrollment in traditional Medicare starting with people who turn 65 in 2022. Instead, these seniors would receive vouchers indexed to inflation and based on age, income and health status, to purchase private insurance from health plans.
• Increase Medicare's eligibility age by two months per year starting in 2022 until it reaches 67 in 2033.

Medicaid

• Turn federal Medicaid funding into block grants starting in 2013. The grants would grow based on inflation and state populations.

• End Medicaid payments for acute care and dual-eligible beneficiaries starting in 2022.

• Stop Medicaid funding from automatically increasing during a recession.

Health Reform Law

• End the law's requirement for individuals to have health coverage.

• Rescind a Medicaid expansion expected to cover 16 million people.

• Repeal health insurance exchanges and coverage subsidies.

• Repeal tax credits for small employers that offer health insurance.

• Retain hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts in the reform law.

• End the process of closing the Medicare prescription drug benefit's coverage gap.

• Repeal the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Source: Congressional Budget Office analysis of House Republican budget proposal, April www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

As far as saying Ryan's plan will not effect anyone who is now 65, that isn't even a little bit true. Ryan's plan slashes Medicaid now; the elderly are a huge part of Medicaid spending. Ryan's plan would cut the funding for the poorest of the elderly in 2022- those that are Medicare Primary and Medicaid secondary.

But even if you put aside the cuts to Medicaid effect on Medicare, it is absolutely true that Ryan's plan would, over time, harm today's elderly. Consider a 70 year old using dialysis today, Medicare primary, secondary through his past employment and let's assume he is going to live another 20 years. In 10 years the Medicare pool will start to shrink so his access to care will decline. That's the way insurance works - the rate you pay is due to the size of your insurance pool. Ryan's plan takes the largest insurance pool with the lowest per procedure cost and breaks that pool into smaller pools. It will cause per treatment costs to increase. No insurer, a fraction of the size of Medicare is going to be able to pay anything like Medicare's allowed rates.

This will be a boon to providers. DaVita will be paid a lot more per treatment by people who now 55 and in 10 years will need to buy private insurance and join a relatively small insurance pool. And because Medicare, post 2022, has fewer beneficiaries, our now 80 year old will have fewer options as providers opt out of Medicare. Providers will see Medicare as a dying revenue source that is painless to ignore. And should our 70 year old need to move into a skilled nursing facility it is not at all clear where under the Ryan plan funding for his care will come from since Medicaid for dual eligibles has ended. The other thing I've not seen addressed is who is policing the healthcare market without Medicare? Under what authority would a state survey a medical facility? What would dialysis be like if there were no conditions of participation putting some kind of floor under the provision of dialysis?

Willis you asked where is the Obama plan if Ryan's plan is unworkable? It's in law. It's the Affordable Care Act. Ryan counts the 500 billion in ACA savings too but those are savings that were passed and then used in the last election to frighten seniors. Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Independent Payment Advisory Board were not scored as saving money by the CBO but if they are allowed to work they will improve the efficiency of the system. There are actually about a dozen pilots and investments, for instance electronic medical records, and Accountable Care Organizations that could improve care and efficiency that were passed as part of the ACA. When some of the pilots work or investments pan out we should build on them, and when some of them don't we should try something else. We have the option of incremental change. We have the option of keeping Medicare as a defined benefits plan.

Right now our revenue problems are greater than our expense problems. Revenue and Expenses should be between 19 and 20% of GDP by historic standards. To get there you'd need $3 to $4 of new revenue for every $1 to $2 of cuts. To me the equivalent situation would have been if in 2006 the new Democratic Congress refused to increase the debt limit unless Bush agreed to a carbon tax and a VAT tax without any Medicare or SS benefit reductions. I'm not sure I can imagine what the reaction would have been among Republicans but I think if the House held firm Bush would have gone the 14th amendment route. I think Obama should take that option today.

[Bill Peckham]

I think, if things were so great, say in 1998, why don't we just tell EVERY department in the Federal Government to pull out their 1998 budget, apply an inflation factor perhaps, and insist they make it based on that amount. If Bush and Obama have really screwed things up so bad, let's just print up a little fiscal time machine and start over.

If you use 2001, the last time we had a budget surplus, entitlement and discretionary spending would be about the same as a percentage of GDP. We'd have $500 billion more in revenue and we'd need to cut defense and "security" by about 80%.


Willis that's a great idea!

[MooseMom]

@ Willis, I am under 55 and I don't want a voucher system tarted up as Medicare, thank you very much.  And I disagree that no one in Washington is working to find solutions.  Just because Ryan's plan is cruel and unworkable and NOT what the American people want doesn't mean that there are not other discussions going on.  And Bill is right...there IS another plan, and it is law, and it is the Affordable Care Act.  Even the GOP themselves are stepping back from Ryan's plan. 

I asked my husband just how budget cuts affected the city for which he is an attorney.  He told me that they laid off 10% of the city's workforce, both union and non-union.  They are not hiring to replace firemen, police, etc who retire.  There is now only one firetruck per two firehouses.  The City Council has cut to the barest bones because they don't want to raise taxes, but they've come to the conclusion that there are just no more spending cuts to be had.  So they are doing weird things like fining people $500 for driving with their stereos too loud, I kid you not.

@ Rerun, farmers don't feed us, agricorporations do.  We could all afford to cut back on what we eat in this country.  Most of it is crap, anyway, and the fertilizers they use here in the midwest flow down into the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico to create the biggest dead zone yet.  Those waters are the livelihoods of shrimpers and crabbers that feed us, too.  Farm subsidies are all too often given not to just the cherished small family farmer but to the big agricultural corporations.  More corporate welfare.

That's great that your friend found so many faith-based volunteers in hardstruck areas who were helping.  Charity is wonderful; I have a long list of charities to whom I give regularly.  But would you trust your church to fund your dialysis treatments?  Charity is not always sustainable, nor is it always there when you need it.

@Hemodoc, At one time, America had common values of hard work and taking care of our own, but not anymore.   Take this statement.  How does hard work and "taking care of our own" work for a dialysis patient?  What does this even mean?   I've worked hard all my life, both in paid employment and by being a stay-at-home mom to look after my disabled son.  But that's not going to innoculate me against the whims of bad fortune, and one day in the not too distant future, I'm going to have to depend on the American taxpayer to pay for treatments to keep me alive.  That so sucks bigtime that I can't find better words to describe the bigtime suckiness of it all.

I firmly agree with you in questioning why we ask God to bless America while our society is so un-Christian.  We are supposed to look after each other, not look after only "our own", whatever that means.  Why can't we look after our fellow Americans?  When I read here on IHD how much our chronically ill members are suffering financially because they are ill and cannot work, why don't they get more help from their neighbors?  Why do we, in this supposedly God-blessed country, allow any one of our fellow Americans to fall into bankruptcy because of illness?  Why do we go to church yet let our fellow citizens go hungry or refuse to help pay for their health care?  Aren't the poor supposed to be bless-ed?  We sure don't bless them.  Instead, we puff ourselves up in righteous indignation and yell about "personal responsibility", which is code for "you allowed yourself to become ill or poor or whatever, so screw you."

[Bill Peckham]

I agree completely with Brad Delong, Obama and the Dems are not adept at politics
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/06/this-is-very-bad-barack-obama-fail-department.html

I wasn't able to just cut and paste the Delong post because of formatting issues but follow the link.

I think that the story coming out tells me that the Republicans don't care about the debt and Obama's negotiating has already given too much ground.


(My NxStage is in the car and my Mom should be landing in about an hour ... I'm internet free for the weekend I'm not sure if it's    or  but I leave it to you guys to figure out the situation in DC)

[Jie]

Actually, this can be done very easily: stopping all Bush and Obama tax cuts and tax credits and bringing all our troops home from the middle east. This can be done when a high propportion of GOP candidates are defeated in the 2012 election. Meanwhile, just have a temporal lift on debt limits.

[Bill Peckham]

Sorry one last thing... the federal Budget is nothing like a house hold budget and it is nothing like running a business. And the situation in the US nothing like the situation in Greece. But if I had to put the situation into household financial terms then I would say that a super majority of Americans would borrow money at 3 or 4% to put a child through college, support a parent or niece, invest in the family and keep assets in good working order. And a super majority of Americans would borrow money rather than doing anything to their credit score that would increase an incredibly low cost of borrowing.

[Rerun]

Government Farm Payments do not go to BIG corporate farms.  The Payment Limitation Rule Adjusted Gross Income stopped all that.  But, the media keeps harping on that so the myth goes on.  Once in a while a payment slips out to one of the Hilton's but we get it back. 

We don't want our food supply to be like our Oil Supply....... coming from foreign interests who can then control what and when we eat.

Farming is not easy and it does not pay well.  Farmer's Kids do not want to farm.  It is scary.

No Farms No Food.

[MooseMom]

One last thought for hemodoc.  If your church is too small to support a pastor and his family, then why do you not do the Christian thing and support his family instead of making him rely on a salary?  And if we had universal health care, your pastor wouldn't have to worry about health insurance for him and his dependents.  But no, we can't have universal health care/single payer system because that would mean Mr. Thiry wouldn't get to ponce around in his costumes in his new million dollar corporate facility.

I passed four "mega-churches" today on my way to the market.  These places are enormous.  Why should they not pay any tax, at least property tax to the small city in which I live?  It's not just our federal government that is struggling under debt, it is also our local governments.  Our property taxes are outrageously high, and 95% of it goes to fund our public schools.  Why should these stonking great churches not have to contribute to our city government?  Why should they be granted tax exemptions?  Why shouldn't they pay contributions (taxes) to the efficient running of our town and our public school system?

[Hemodoc]

One last thought for hemodoc.  If your church is too small to support a pastor and his family, then why do you not do the Christian thing and support his family instead of making him rely on a salary?  And if we had universal health care, your pastor wouldn't have to worry about health insurance for him and his dependents.  But no, we can't have universal health care/single payer system because that would mean Mr. Thiry wouldn't get to ponce around in his costumes in his new million dollar corporate facility.

I passed four "mega-churches" today on my way to the market.  These places are enormous.  Why should they not pay any tax, at least property tax to the small city in which I live?  It's not just our federal government that is struggling under debt, it is also our local governments.  Our property taxes are outrageously high, and 95% of it goes to fund our public schools.  Why should these stonking great churches not have to contribute to our city government?  Why should they be granted tax exemptions?  Why shouldn't they pay contributions (taxes) to the efficient running of our town and our public school system?

Dear Moosemom, not sure why you have singled out churches as your target.  The Supreme Court has addressed these issues dealing not only with churches but museums and other organizations that offer a social benefit to society.  if you think that we should eliminate all tax exempt organizations, what benefits will that be to society when many of them simply close their doors.  If you only single out church's that in my opinion is anti-religion.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/05-tax-exemptions-of-religious-property.html

Lastly, as far as my pastor goes, I have been quite generous to him personally and will continue in that endeavor in the future.  Thank you for asking since indeed I am moved by simple Christian motives but it shall be God as my judge, not anyone else.

Now, back to the issues of our exploding government spending. Borrowing 42 cents on the dollar with the worlds highest corporate tax rates already and spending trillions of dollars on programs of shovel ready projects, haven't you looked at what those projects were?  Have you looked at how much fraud and abuse the stimulus generated instead of stimulating the economy.

http://projects.propublica.org/tables/stimulus-investigations

America is heading into a period of economic chaos largely brought on by out of control government spending. Then look at the regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act not to speak of the negative economic impact that the so called Affordible Care Act will reap upon this nation. (what about all of those politically motivated waivers to Obamacare, that is another national outrage) The result will be further erosion of American jobs and more dependence on the government for our provisions. If that is the kind of America you want, then go for it. Just as lemmings march off into the sea every few years, it seems that America will do likewise. So be it.

[Hemodoc]

Actually, this can be done very easily: stopping all Bush and Obama tax cuts and tax credits and bringing all our troops home from the middle east. This can be done when a high propportion of GOP candidates are defeated in the 2012 election. Meanwhile, just have a temporal lift on debt limits.

What about Obama's wars in Yemin and Lybia? I thought he was the anti-war president?

[lmunchkin]

 In answer to the question this topic asked:   NO, Congress should not raised the Debt Ceiling! We need to stop Borrowing money! Proverbs:  THE BORROWER IS SLAVE TO THE LENDER!   
No to borrowing, Budget, Budget and Budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MooseMom, I owe you an apology for saying the things I said on this thread. I know you & I have talked since, but I feel I should apologize for my hurtful comments to you on this thread.  Im so very sorry, and love all of you on IHD.  You certainly, didnt deserve it.


Thanks Okarol, again for this opportunity!

[Jie]

What about Obama's wars in Yemin and Lybia? I thought he was the anti-war president?

We should not waste money on these wars. If any country wants to have an internal war, just let them fight it out. Without the wars during the last 10 years, we would not have the much debt problems. I am very disappointed for Obama to start these wars too. Hopefully the GOP can force Obama to end the Lybia war.   

[MooseMom]

Lmunchkin.I am not sure who you were posting to, but I will say that my belief that these enormous churches should pay property tax so that our town can hire more firemen is not "anti religion", and I resent hemodoc's implication.  This has nothing to do with Jesus Christ but everything to do with having the resources to help people in need, which is what Christ wants us to do.  I JUST do not understand why cutting spending is the ONLY option we are supposed to consider.

As for Libya, President Obama didn't "start a war".  This was an Anglo-French led campaign following a UN security resolution mandating air strikes to protect Libyan citizens as requested by the Arab League.  I personally don't think that air strikes will provide an answer any longer, but Khadafi needs to step down, and I'm sure there are a lot of negotiations going on in that regard.

The GOP-led House threatened to defund our operations in Libya to illustrate their righteous indignation, but in the end, that's not the way they voted.  They specifically voted NOT to defund it.

[Bill Peckham]

From the Economist Free Exchange blog:

DAVID BROOKS is in high dudgeon today:


A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth...

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.


It goes on like that, if you can believe it. And yes, that's David Brooks, not Paul Krugman. To review, Democrats have signed on to trillions in spending cuts. They appear to be offering to accept closed loopholes and eliminated tax expenditures, as opposed to rate increases, as the revenue side of the deal. And we learned yesterday that Democratic leaders are apparently willing to put tens of billions in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, on top of reduced spending growth rates already offered, on the table.


The Republican response? Leaders are now considering adding to their demands and making a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution part of the final deal. But at this point, Democratic leaders can have little confidence that additional concessions will bring them any closer to a deal. The parties aren't moving toward each other; Democrats are following Republicans to the right, and closer to the cliff's edge.


It is becoming ever more difficult to write about this ongoing negotiation (if you can call it that). Journalists can't see the actual discussions between the two parties and grab at whatever leaks come their way to try and construct a narrative. The economists have mostly concluded that a default would be disastrous, and are keeping themselves busy watching financial markets, looking for any sign that they're becoming worried. It's difficult to know what to look for, however; how would you hedge against default of the world's bedrock, risk-free asset?


In all probability, America won't default; it's still difficult to imagine that it cold come to that. The bigger danger, I think, is that the Republican strategy will either lead Democrats to accept short-term cuts large enough to endanger recovery or will result in a short period of "prioritisation", in which spending is suddenly and dramatically cut back to prevent a default once the money runs out (on or about August 2nd). America may make it through this episode with its credit rating intact and still sustain significant economic damage.

A lot of people are alarmed.

[MooseMom]

I guess I'm an "independent" because, especially as I get older, I am socially pretty liberal (I don't much care what other people do, so maybe I'm not so much "liberal" as "apathetic"), but I do tend to be fiscally conservative.  In the past, I have voted both Democrat and Republican depending upon the issues of the day.  I have always been a fan of "the loyal opposition" and feel that people of differing opinions can work together to do what is best for the country as a whole.  But the Republican Party of 2011 is unrecognizable to me.  That is not to say that I agree with all fiscal policies touted by the Democrats, but there is so little that I like about the policies of the Republicans that I am really astonished that they would so easily and quickly abdicate from their usual platform of fiscal responsibility.  Fiscal responsibility isn't just a function of reigning in spending, but is also a function of wise investment, job creation and revenue raising.

I've said before that there is a difference between spending (which these days carries a connotation of irresponsibility) and investment, and this story on The Huffington Post very neatly illustrates that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/freshman-republicans-federal-spending_n_890518.html