The One Thing the National Debt-Ceiling Has Never Done? Put a Ceiling on the Rising National Debt
"The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be (see chart above, courtesy of today's "The Gartman Letter").
Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies -- and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.
The Obama administration is a classic example. When all its skyrocketing spending bills were being rushed through Congress without even being read, the Democrats had such overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives that Republicans had all they could do to get a word in edgewise -- even though their words had no chance of stopping, or even slowing down, the spending of trillions of dollars.
Now that the bill is coming due for all that spending and borrowing, Republicans are suddenly being invited in to share the blame for either raising the national debt ceiling or for whatever other unpopular measures will be legislated.
Many years ago, someone said, "If you didn't invite me to the big take-off, don't invite me to the crash landing." This was Obama's big spending spree, but "bipartisanship" requires Republicans to either split the bill or be blamed if the government shuts down or defaults.
What would happen if there were no national debt-ceiling law?
Those who got the political benefits from handing out trillions of dollars of the taxpayers' money (plus borrowed money) would also get the clear and sole blame for the resulting skyrocketing national debt and all the unpopular consequences."
100 Comments:
Is Sowell just going to ignore that about $12 trillion of the $14+ trillion debt came from the 20 years of Reagan and three Bush presidencies?
The biggest spending bills over the last decade as I recall are Bush's prescription drug plan and his wars. Bush offered these on the heels of tax cuts. When you cut revenue and increase expenditures massively, I don't know what else can be expected. When Obama came to office the deficit was already scheduled to be $1 trillion.
When Bush cut taxes the claim was the government is collecting too much as evidenced by the surpluses. But the left's response was it's OK to have a surplus and save for that rainy day. Why doesn't Bush get at least some credit for this mess?
Not sure the first two posters actually looked at the chart.
Jon,
By all means, Bush deserves some blame for blowing money on failed liberal programs. He didn't even get the benefit of gratitude and votes from the freeloaders who benefit from them.
Regarding the prescription drug plan, the momentum for that was begun during the Clinton administration and endorsed by Clinton himself. I remember Gore campaigning on it and hectoring Bush about it during the debates. The Democrats offered Bush a version that was twice as expensive as the one Bush ended up signing.
Just sayin'
Dr. Tax,
The chart was not in Sowell's article or commentary. It came from The Gartman Letter. Maybe Sowell is the one who did not look at it.
We had a 5 trillion debt when Clinton achieved a (somewhat disputed)surplus.
At the end of BushII, we had a 10 trillion deficit and worse, we had an attitude from the Republicans that if we have a terrorist attack - that our response to it - can be more debt and we don't have to pay for it.
Why...those fools even cut taxes AFTER they decided to have two wars and Medicare Part D.
And NOW... NOW.. that we have the debt ... we have all this blather about a "spending" problem without, as far as I can tell, a single list of 1.5 trillion in cuts from ANY Republican ....
So the Republicans ran up the debt and now they say we have a "spending" problem.
Well.... DUH... take a look at the DOD, Afghanistan, Iraq, Homeland Security, and Medicare Part D INCREASES in the budget.
These realities do not seem to bother these guys.
We OWE 14+ trillion and we ARE ADDING TO IT at the rate of 1.5 trillion a year - and the BEST these guys can come up with is to cut entitlements which are about 1/3 of the deficit.
take note - check this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
We currently take in barely 1.1 trillion in income taxes to fund the govt.
We ARE SPENDING 1.5 trillion MORE than that.
Of all the fiery rhetoric from Washington - Show me ONE SINGLE PLAN from the Republicans that address the 1.5 trillion deficit that they had a large part in creating.
Quote from Larry G.: "Of all the fiery rhetoric from Washington - Show me ONE SINGLE PLAN from the Republicans that address the 1.5 trillion deficit that they had a large part in creating."
There is one Republican with such a plan.
All the "but the Republicans did this" and "the Democrats did that" talk is completely irrelevant at this point. The country is at the end of a hundred year binge funded through fantasy economics.
Anybody who is looking for a way to keep the gravy train running through another election is part of the problem (no matter what their party).
"Of all the fiery rhetoric from Washington - Show me ONE SINGLE PLAN from the Republicans that address the 1.5 trillion deficit that they had a large part in creating."
Are you serious? The Republicans have offered up multiple plans, the only reason we are even having this discussion now is because the new House GOP is demanding we change course. Obama was quite content to keep his turbo charged spending binge on course to doomsday. Speaking of, where is HIS plan?
One really needs to understand how the monetary system works. Please spend a few minutes in reading this informative article
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MG27Dj02.html
"
The debt ceiling
The debt ceiling is a myth because there is no need to borrow to finance public expenditure and the creation of public assets. As Ron Paul points out, the Fed - which is ludicrously receiving interest from the Treasury in order to pay it right back again as profit - could actually waive or tear up the US$1.6 trillion Treasury debt it has bought through quantitative easing (QE), and it would make precisely no difference other than to reduce the National Debt at a stroke by that amount.
As the great US inventor Thomas Edison put it in 1921: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good."
Here's how Bloomberg played it:
Republican Leaders Voted for Drivers of US Debt They Now Blame on Obama
Bloomberg - 49 minutes ago
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.), center, speaks during a news conference with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R-Va.), left, Senator Jon Kyl, (R-Az.
what Republican? Not Ryan. All Ryan did was proposed capping entitlements and letting supply-side make up the gap for the non-entitlements.
His "plan" takes until 2030 to balance and presumes an unemployment rate of 3%.
that's not a "plan". That's just idiocy.
Looks like it took Reagan a couple of years to accelerate the crve he inherited from Carter.
Took Clinton a couple of years to slow down the curve he inherited from Bush, and took BushII a couple of years to accelerate the curve he inherited from Clinton.
What I see is about a two year lag in how long it takes a new administration to affect any change.
As for Obama, too soon to tell, although it does appear that he has managed to accelrate further the already accelerating curve he inherited from Bush
re: "Republicans have offered up "multiple" plans.
show me...
where are their plans?
I've yet to see a single one that proposed 1.5 trillion in cuts alone.
If they actually HAD such a plan - they'd have a significant bargaining position with the President - but no such plan really exists.
As the great US inventor Thomas Edison put it in 1921: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good."
=================================
70% of the money, we owe to ourselves. We eiher pay off the debt and we are out the money used to pay, or we don't pay off the debt and we are out the money we loaned.
Either way, we are out the money, and Edison was correct.
Bush w/ R House: 5.75tn - 9tn
Obama w/ D House: 9tn - 15.5tn
Plus, you can add on another 0.3tn to Obama's record for all the funds for the GSE's not included.
Doesn't this acceleration scare you? "But we must spend to avert the next depression, we are in crisis"......
Apparently, they don't teach union members and liberal arts majors how to read graphs?
Will Walt G ignore the fact that Congress was in the hands of Democrats 2008 to 2010?
No, these years aren't from the Gartman Letter...
"Bush deserves some blame for blowing money on failed liberal programs"...
Absolutely Paul!!
"We had a 5 trillion debt when Clinton achieved a (somewhat disputed) surplus"...
Somewhat Larry G?!?!
Consider what Mona Charen has to say: The Golden Age of Clinton?
Bobby Caygeon,
It all scares me with enough blame to go around for all. I thought Sowell's article was slanted by failing to mention the history of the national debt or expaining where it came from.
Reps and Dems get to share in both the accumulation and rate of acceleration of the national debt. That's what I see in the chart. How about you?
"I've yet to see a single one that proposed 1.5 trillion in cuts alone."
Are you talking about in one year? I don't think it would be wise to chop that much off in a single yr. otherwise, I refer you to, off the top of my head, Rand Paul's plan, Tom Coburn's plan, and the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill that Harry Reid's Senate killed the other day so Obama didn't have to veto it. Again, the only reason we are having this battle now is because a new GOP came to town determined to deal with the problem Obama enhanced to crisis levels.
Speaking of Obama, again I ask you where is the plan from the President of the United States? You remind me of Benji in that you attack the GOP for their imperfect ideas while asking nothing of the jackass President who accelerated the spending binge to unprecedented levels.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Is Sowell joking? The only reason we're having this debate is because of the debt ceiling. Of course, the debt ceiling has not worked at actually capping debt, so it looks like a balanced budget amendment is the only thing that'll work. Considering that most states already have one, I don't see why it would be difficult to pass at the federal level too.
I'm content to lay some blame with Democrats, but look at what Perry says. "If you didn't invite me to the big take-off, don't invite me to the crash landing." This was Obama's big spending spree. Didn't Republicans push a major tax cut and then immediately go on a massive spending binge? That's pure partisanship from Perry, not fair analysis.
Jon,
You are quoting Sowell not Perry.
This chart is based on the (sadly) standard civics FAIL that the President authorizes spending - the Congress does that (even if they're trying to shrug that responsibility as well), but it does take a nice ax to the Republican fantasy that having one of theirs in office slows the growth of the national debt.
an interesting feature of this chart is that the years in which debt really explodes are years when the presidency and the congress belong to the same party.
bottom line, neither team red nor team blue seems trustworthy with 2 branches.
"bottom line, neither team red nor team blue seems trustworthy with 2 branches"...
Yep M, it sure does seem that way...
"Didn't Republicans push a major tax cut and then immediately go on a massive spending binge? "
Personally, I'd love to go back to the deficits of unified GOP control 2001-2007.
Perhaps "neither team red nor team blue seems trustworthy with 2 branches," but that's only because they then fight each other so much that they won't approve the other side's spending increases. Hence Obama spewing bullshit about not wanting to increase the debt ceiling, by much less, when he was a senator, only now that he's President, it's imperative of course. What we need is actual cuts and perhaps if we gave neither team red nor team blue but team Tea control of both branches, :) we'll actually see Cut, Cap, and Balance and other necessary acts go through.
What about a law that requires all legislation to independently confirm cost, along with the revenue streams to pay for it?
Divorcing cost from revenue allows one party to win favor with special interests while socializing the blame for its payment, which never gets done.
Activity based costing measurements are a wonderful thing.
"Bush offered these on the heels of tax cuts. When you cut revenue and increase expenditures massively, I don't know what else can be expected."
Bush cut TAX RATES, REVENUES actually INCREASED after he cut TAX RATES. I know that it's hard for liberals to distinguish between the two.
"... the left's response was it's OK to have a surplus and save for that rainy day."
First, the Clinton surpluses were the result of budgets passed by a Republican Congress. Every single budget that Clinton proposed called for more spending than the budget that the Republicans wrote and passed. Only the House of Representatives can spend money and raise taxes.
"... those fools even cut taxes AFTER they decided to have two wars and Medicare Part D."
They decided?? Apparently you've forgotten that the Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. As for Medicare Part D, while I think that that was a mistake, the Democrat plan was nearly twice as expensive.
"Republican Leaders Voted for Drivers of US Debt They Now Blame on Obama"
The "drivers of the US debt" are the entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid and SS all put into law by Democrats. As for blaming Obama, why not? When the Democrats took control of The House in 2007 the deficit was 167 billion. They are responsible for all of the spending since then and Obama voted for all of it. Just because he whines like a little bitch and his sycophants in he media never call him on it doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve the blame.
"Took Clinton a couple of years to slow down the curve he inherited from Bush ..."
Clinton never slowed down the curve. Again, the budgets that led to surplus were written and passed by the Republican Congress.
The undisputed facts are:
- Average federal spending was a smaller share of the economy during the George W. Bush administration than during each of the Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan administrations.
- The same is true for taxes. Average federal taxes were a smaller share of the economy under our 43rd President than under our 40th, 41st, or 42nd.
- Of the four, President Clinton’s deficits were smallest, almost entirely because his revenues were highest. President George W. Bush had the second-smallest deficits of the four.
- The budget deficit during President Bush’s tenure averaged two percent, below the fifty-year average of three percent.
George W. Bush, a wartime President, had a smaller federal government and lower taxes relative to the economy than each of his three predecessors, historically small deficits, no tax increases, and 5.3% average unemployment. He vetoed a farm bill and two health bills for spending too much. He proposed structural and incremental reforms to Social Security and Medicare that set up the current entitlement reform debate. Maybe the conventional wisdom should be revised a bit.
Keith Hennessey
"Bush cut TAX RATES, REVENUES actually INCREASED after he cut TAX RATES"...
Good point Che!...
Consider the February 3, 2010 column in the Washington Times: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue
Consider the January 29, 2007 posting on the Heritage Foundation site: Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
"Are you talking about in one year?"
It's a 14+ trillion existing debt that we are adding 1.5 trillion to - every year.
re: Obama
Obama and David Stockton as well as other Reagan era supply-siders say we cannot balance with cuts alone.
Obama and others do not think we can do it with cuts alone.
The Republicans insist we can do it with cuts alone.
Point me to the Republican that has provided a list of cuts that total 1.5 trillion dollars. Not one.
re: the debt ceiling.
someone tell me how many times the debt ceiling was voted in favor of by Republicans under Bush....
Che,
"Clinton never slowed down the curve. Again, the budgets that led to surplus were written and passed by the Republican Congress."
Excellent point. I always found it frustrating how Clinton took and received all the credit for surpluses he mostly fought against kicking and screaming. Remember the '95 budget showdown between Clinton and the "extremist" Republican Congress?
It's also worth pointing out the economic time bombs he left for the future, like his role in the housing bubble via CRA and his veto of the GOP bill to drill in ANWR.
"Bush cut TAX RATES, REVENUES actually INCREASED after he cut TAX RATES. I know that it's hard for liberals to distinguish between the two. "
so why did the debt go from 5 trillion to 10 trillion under Bush?
what non-liberals don't understand is that theory does not substitute for realities.
if tax cuts actually were EFFECTIVE - would they not have REDUCED the 5 trillion debt that Bush inherited instead of doubling it?
and now.. the standard idiotic conservative answer to the current 14+ trillion dollar debt? tax cuts that did not work before....
I really don't care about the lame theories that the right-wing clings to.
I would like to see RESULTS.
show me how to cut the 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit and 14+ trillion debt and stop blather about lame theories that have proven to not work.
"Obama and David Stockton as well as other Reagan era supply-siders say we cannot balance with cuts alone."
David Stockman, not Stockton. Who cares what that loser thinks? Who are these "other" supply siders besides the now left Bruce Bartlett? Besides, yeah, we can balance with cuts alone just like I balance my checkbook by spending less instead of getting a second job.
"Obama and others do not think we can do it with cuts alone."
And he has offered jack squat in the way of cuts, and you know it because you have yet to provide any real plan you demanded of the GOP House. Why is it you hold the House to a higher standard than the President? Or are you just a hack, Larry?
Obama's only ideas( if you ignore his February budget that sent the debt to the stratosphere, and his deficit commission he completely blew off) are taxing the most productive people and, of course, the evil corporate jet owners.
"..if tax cuts actually were EFFECTIVE - would they not have REDUCED the 5 trillion debt that Bush inherited instead of doubling it?"
Uh, not if spending went up faster than revenues...
I will grant you, however, that Bush's tax cuts that removed millions of lower income people from the roles was stupid, and probably a money loser.
"I would like to see RESULTS."
Well, then you should have hurled Obamanomics into the trash by now.
"..show me how to cut the 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit and..."
I've done that repeatedly in this thread.
"show me how to cut the 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit and 14+ trillion debt ..."
Simple. Get rid of Obama.
As is well-documented online, Stockman was anything but a supply-sider, he fought the Kemp/Reagan tax cuts in the '80s because he apparently thought spending should be cut also. Now he seems to have taken the position that we should just increase tax revenues somewhat, because he thinks it's politically impossible to cut spending and he thinks debt is a bigger problem. Like Paul, I would be interested to know what other "supply-siders" are now endorsing raising taxes. As I commented on another post, Obama's cuts are completely made up because he "cuts" them from budget forecasts that are completely blown out to crazy levels of spending. The only "balanced" approach is from the Tea Party saying we have to actually cut spending to match revenues, yet most people will never understand that because the media is almost completely in the bag for Obama.
Hey Larry,
Just saw Obama promised to veto Boehner's plan to cut the deficit.
Meanwhile, his mouthpiece Carney called press requests to see an actual, specific plan from Obama a "Republican talking point."
How's that grabbing you while you are pounding the table demanding to see one of the many GOP plans you pretend do not exist?
"..if tax cuts actually were EFFECTIVE - would they not have REDUCED the 5 trillion debt that Bush inherited instead of doubling it?"
"Uh, not if spending went up faster than revenues..."
Amazing. You actually have to hold his hand through this.
Following the Bush tax rate adjustments (I don't want you to get tax rates and revenue mixed up again), the Federal Treasury had the largest three-year increase of revenue in 26 years, and tax receipts grew more than $542 billion between 2000 and 2007. Those increased revenue would only have reduced the federal debt if the federal budget had been in surplus, which it was not.
I know that every left-winger can recite, chapter and verse, the story of how poor Barack Obama inherited a mess, but Bush inherited his own set of economic challenges. The difference is that instead of constantly blaming others he manned-up. He came to office following an epic stock-market meltdown and inherited the ensuing recession. Then the 9/11 attacks occurred just eight months into his term. He was forced to make massive investments in domestic security and to rebuild a military that had been cut almost in half by his predecessor. Increased government spending, climbing world oil prices and the cost of shifting resources toward security were a drag on the private sector. He offset this economic drag by reducing tax rates. And it worked. Economic growth returned and non-defense discretionary spending was kept at or below the rate of inflation and tax revenues increased to record levels. The $400 billion deficit that he had inherited was gradually reduced to $167 billion in 2007. Then the housing bomb that the Democrats had ignited through their reckless policies exploded.
Now that you've had a history lesson, get back to me when you've got an explanation for the consistent failure of Obama's liberal policies. I mean, being grounded in realities and not theory, they should have worked, right?
Che, it looks like most of your claims are correct, except for this claim that revenues increased under Bush. Revenues immediately fell off. Bush's revenue increases following the low point were not impressive. As to your other claims it looks generally true, but it requires that you exclude 2009. It's of course true that Bush was not President in 2009, but in late 2008 you did have the collapse. So what Obama inherited was an economy in collapse. Jobs just falling off. Naturally the revenue is not there. If 2009 is attributed to Bush I don't know if your claims contrasting him with prior Presidents would hold.
Not that I think Bush is the only one responsible for the collapse. Clinton was the one that blocked the financial markets from the scrutiny of regulators. That was a key component of the financial collapse. But he was pressured to do it by people that think like Sowell. Free market ideologues. Ayn Rand's protege Alan Greenspan. So I'm not saying that Democrats don't share the blame. I'm saying this claim from Sowell that Republicans are just standing back saying they tried to save the economy and deficit situation from ruin is just totally unfair.
Between 2000 and 2007? What a strange date range you use, Che? What's wrong with 2008? Check my link and we'll see. In 2000 receipts were $2,025 billion and in 2008 they were $2,524, an increase of 25% over 8 years. Clinton went from $1,091 to $2,025 in 8 years, an increase of 86%. And if you include 2009 Bush loses almost the full 25% he had gained. Tax revenue increases under Clinton were enormous whereas under Bush they are paltry.
Let me back up what I was saying about Obama's lies with some numbers. This budget breakdown has a good chart that shows historical and projected revenues and spending from 1960 to 2020. Obama's budget proposal raises spending from the historical average of 20% of GDP to 22%, slowly rising up to 23% by 2020, with taxes going up from the historical average of 18% to 20%. Now, he proposes $2-3 trillion in cuts over 10 years from those raised numbers, which only brings spending back down around a percentage point to 21%. This is in addition to his proposal being "perhaps the most gimmick-laden budget in memory," meaning his proposal likely underestimates the huge budget deficits that will be run up if we adopted his plan.
So we have a President offering a radical increase in the size of government, then offering to trim his fantasy a bit under public pressure, and it's the Tea Party, that simply wants a balanced budget and to bring govt back into line, that is being "radical"? The fact that that's the narrative dominating the mass media just goes to show how they've been bought and sold and simply become ideological water-carriers masquerading as "objective" for the ignorant.
"Is Sowell just going to ignore that about $12 trillion of the $14+ trillion debt came from the 20 years of Reagan and three Bush presidencies?""
Gee, just eye-balling the chart, it looks like the debt ceiling was raised about $6+ Trillion during that time, and another $6+ Trillion during Clinton/Obama years.
I may be sticking my neck out here, but without looking up actual debt numbers, I assume that the debt has increased every time the ceiling has been raised, so the chart would indicate actual debt as well as the debt ceiling.
So, unless you have something different to show, it looks like the President's political party has little to do with expansion of the debt. Neither party appears to fear the inevitable train wreck.
"Neither party appears to fear the inevitable train wreck."
I agree. The chart is not Sowell's, and you will not find an equal blame statement in his article.
"Amazing. You actually have to hold his hand through this."
You have no idea. If you haven't watched it for yourself, you won't believe it.
Jon,
"Che, it looks like most of your claims are correct, except for this claim that revenues increased under Bush. Revenues immediately fell off. Bush's revenue increases following the low point were not impressive. "
Are you having trouble understanding your own reference? When you describe your own version of history, you should keep your dates straight.
Recall that the Bush tax cuts, announced in 2002, applied in 2003. Does a revenue gain of 6.5% in that year not rise to the level of impressive in your world? How about the 5% gains after that?
Look, I'm not a Bush defender, but you can't make up your own facts.
Jon
"Clinton went from $1,091 to $2,025 in 8 years, an increase of 86%."
You are showing nominal dollars. do you understand that there is a thing called inflation? try using the figures from the 'Constant 2005 Dollars' columns & see how it looks. You also want to consider that the Clinton 'surplus' was achieved through 'inter-governmental transfers', which means borrowing from some government trust funds, including Social Security.
If you want to understand the SS Trust Fund, just ask Larry G. He's an expert on the subject. (just kidding)
Ron, I thought Bush passed tax cuts in 2001 and then more in 2003. In fact I got a $600 check in 2001 thanks to the Bush tax cuts. Revenues were down in 2001, down more in 2002, and down more again in 2003. Notice that revenues hadn't fallen in all of the Clinton or Bush Sr years. They did fall in 1983.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yeah, you're right Ron. I should use constant $.
So Clinton is up 57%. Bush? Down 1%. A rather significant failure. (Deleted prior post for typo.)
folks - Obama, Stockman and others INCLUDING two deficit commissions HAVE OFFERED a Balance of cuts and revenues.
They have "delivered" on what they promised.
It's the Republicans who have insisted all along that cuts-alone can do the deed but not a one of them has actually offered a list of 1.5 trillion worth of cuts - right now or phased in...
not a one.
I call that hypocrisy.
Why should I vote Obama out and these guys in when they won't even deliver what they say can be done?
The Republicans have had EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITIES to UNDERCUT BOTH Deficit Commissions, Obama, stockman...and others who say it can't be done with cuts alone - by showing that it can.
I call that hypocrisy,.
they keep pointing fingers and have delivered nothings.
which is pretty much what they did the 8 year under Bush II also.
how can you guys say they have done differently...?
Larry, I showed you exactly how Obama's "cuts" are fake. If you can't follow facts and figures, perhaps you shouldn't engage in this debate. Rand Paul proposed a 5-year budget that would close the deficit gap, detailing cuts to everything from defense to education, but of course, it was shot down in the Democrat-led Senate. Funny how the Democrats always want to spend much more than the Republicans, in any situation, yet somehow the Republicans are the only ones to blame for some of you.
Larry,
"folks - Obama, Stockman and others INCLUDING two deficit commissions HAVE OFFERED a Balance of cuts and revenues."
Then for the hundredth time, give the link to his plan. His own press spinmeister Carney today admitted today Obama hasn't offered anything beyond speeches,
so you must know something nobody else knows.
Let's see it, Larry.
l
"they keep pointing fingers and have delivered nothings."
Kinda like you, Larry.
", I showed you exactly how Obama's "cuts" are fake"
all the more reason the Republicans should deliver on what they promised and instead they run and hide even from Obama's Plan.
re: the deficit commissions
you guys NEED A LINK to the two deficit commission reports - that have nothing to do with Obama ?
where is the Republican competitive alternative to the two deficit commission recommendations?
I'll tell you where, AWOL.
the Republicans are total hypocrites.
they say you can do it with cuts alone - no new revenues but they have no proposal to do that and instead - get this - they claim that Obama should do it.
Obama has already said - numerous times, along with other non-Democrats, including BOTH deficit commissions that it cannot be done without some new revenues.
Those who say you don't need the new revenues have failed to deliver a plan of cuts-alone.. that balance the budget.
these guys are yahoos... unprincipled hypocrites.. and they've been that way the whole time from Bush II til now.
give me ONE HONEST Fiscal Conservative who will DELIVER ...1.5 trillion worth of cuts...
name one....
Quote from Larry G. : "what Republican?"
Ron Paul. The politician with any actual economic knowledge. End the wars. Bring home the troops. Cut the spending. End the Fed!
"give me ONE HONEST Fiscal Conservative who will DELIVER ...1.5 trillion worth of cuts...
name one...."
Ron Paul
re: Ron Paul - let's see his plan....
I actually AGREE with some (not all)of what Paul says and I also agree, he is one of a very few, truly principled fiscal conservatives in a sea of hypocrisy.
but the average Republican is never going to agree to cut the wars and the military even as they say "cut" spending.
but I have yet to see -even Ron Pauls specific plan to cut 1.5 trillion annually.
our income taxes revenues are about 1.1 trillion dollars.
The military alone - not counting the wars is almost 700 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
"re: Ron Paul - let's see his plan...."
It's here.
In the first five months of Fiscal 2006, through February, overall revenue continued to surge, growing at an overall rate of 10.3%, or an $81 billion increase from the year ago period, to $871 billion. That builds on the astonishing 15%, or $274 billion, revenue increase for all of 2005, which various fiscal wisemen assured us would fall off dramatically. Apparently not.
This year's double-digit increase is roughly triple the rate of inflation, reflecting strong gains in business profits and individual wages and bonuses -- both signs of a vibrant underlying economy. Corporate income taxes are up 30% so far this year, while individual income tax payments have climbed by 10.3% through February. ...
As for taxes, the revenue data are further proof of the success of the Bush tax cuts of 2003. The fastest way to stop this revenue windfall, and blow an even larger hole in the deficit, would be to fail to extend the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends through 2010, thus assuring a huge tax increase after 2008.
Wall Street Journal
",,all the more reason the Republicans should deliver on what they promised and instead they run and hide even from Obama's Plan."
Obama's plan that you have yet to produce. Where is it, Larry? Where is it Larry? The GOP has put multiple plans of various severity down on paper.
Where is this secret Obama plan that apparently only you know about???
"Obama has already said - numerous times, along with other non-Democrats, including BOTH deficit commissions that it cannot be done without some new revenues."
You talking about the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama completely blew off? That commission?
Show us Obama's plan, Larry. He's the President of the United States, he should have a plan shouldn't he?
that's NOT a PLAN. That's an ideology.
A PLAN shows precisely what you would cut and those series of cuts would total up to 1.5 trillion to end up balancing the budget..
and THEN you would ALSO say how exactly you would go about reducing the 14+ trillion debt.
the PROBLEM that we have right now with all of these folks who say "cut" is they have no real Plan and so they are basically spouting ideological blather much like many of the folks here who parrot that crap.
show me a REAL PLAN to cut the budget by 1.5 trillion dollars, please.
the folks who say we have a "spending" problem should have that plan in hand rather to show.
I believe that Obama DOES HAVE A PLAN that INCLUDES both serious cuts AND new revenues that the Republicans walked away from saying the new revenues were "unacceptable".
I'm sure you remember that.
Obama is ready to implement a plan very similar to both of the deficit commission plans but the Republicans won't sign on to it because they insist that cuts alone can do the trick but not a one of those hypocrites has the guts to produce a proposal of cuts only that total 1.5 trillion.
not a one.
re: WSJ article on revenue generation from tax cuts...
it did NOT WORK to the DEGREE that it NEEDED to - to keep us from doubling the debt and adding a permanent structural 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit.
Continuing to spout ideology that fails to deliver effective results - as a "solution" to the 14+ trillion debt and 1.5 trillion deficit is about as dumb as you can get.
I really don't care about the ideology left or right - I want to see results - balancing the budget and reducing the debt and the Republicans had 8 years for their lame supply-side theories to produce results and they did not.
So now their answer is?
that's right - the same lame theories that have not worked - and NO actual "cut" that totals 1.5 trillion.
they are STILL COUNTING on supplys-side theories that even David Stockman says won't work and are idiotic.
this describes the current state of the so-called fiscal conservatives at this point in time.
Ideological idiots basically who really fail to deal with the real problems.
"I believe that Obama DOES HAVE A PLAN that INCLUDES both serious cuts AND new revenues that the Republicans walked away from saying the new revenues were "unacceptable".
You "believe." Then where is it, Larry? His spokespuke Carney doesn't know about it. The only thing he put on paper was his spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow budget back in February that was defeated in the Senate by a unanimous margin. Even his own Democrats didn't have the balls to vote for such staggeringly irresponible spending.
Other than that, he's blathered on alot and pointed fingers, but has offered NO PLAN of his own.
If he does, provide me the link. If not, quit blustering on when it's obvious bluster is all you have left.
You're just like Benji in that you give spendaholic Obama a complete pass while attacking the people who are trying to at least reduce spending.
Bush and the old GOP spent too much money on failed liberal programs. Pelosi and then Obama took over and accelerated a fairly significant problem to an exitential crisis. Yet, you give the latter a pass.
"that's NOT a PLAN. That's an ideology."
If you're referring to Ron Paul's book, then it's obvious that you haven't even opened the cover. Something you can do at Amazon, by the way.
If you had done so, you would see his suggestions to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt.
He may not have considered people with extremely poor reading comprehension, like you, but the answers are in there. You just have to expend a little more effort than you usually do.
By the way, I can understand why you are reluctant to read, as even when you do, there's so little comprehension, that you correctly consider it a waste of time
"I believe that Obama DOES HAVE A PLAN..."
Do you suppose he might be waiting for the perfect moment, when things seem hopeless, to open his hand to reveal it in all it's simple, shining radiance, so that all Republicans and other sniveling detractors will be forced to bow their heads in shame and mumble "Oh, dear leader, how could we ever have doubted you?"
If Obama did not have a plan, then what did the idiots Cantor and Boehmer walk away from saying they could not agree to new revenues?
Both idiots say that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem and voted for a balanced budget and both have FAILED UTTERLY to present a plan to balance the budget with cuts only.
I called that hypocrisy but it's representative of the right wing ideologues these days....
refuse to agree to a plan LIKE BOTH deficit commission proposals and at the same time REFUSE to present your own plan for cuts-only balance.
RE: Ron Paul
If Paul has a real plan he has a website like everyone else.
No excuses. If you have a plan, present it and allow people to see it, understand it, and sign on to it... otherwise, it's clear that it's not a real plan because he's trying to sell a book instead of the plan.
Larry,
"If Obama did not have a plan, then what did the idiots Cantor and Boehmer walk away from saying they could not agree to new revenues?"
In the meetings, he said he wanted to raise taxes on rich people and corporate jet owners. That's not a plan. Do you comprehend this, Larry?
If Obama had a plan, you could easily find it online. Show me the link and then email Carney so he will know about it next time the press asks him how come Obama doesn't have an actual plan.
"Both idiots say that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem and voted for a balanced budget and both have FAILED UTTERLY to present a plan to balance the budget with cuts only."
"Cut, Cap, and Balance" would have done that gradually. Paul Ryan's plan would have cut $30 billion from next year's budget, not alot but far better than anything Obama has proposed.If various GOP plans are insufficient, isn't that still better than blowing out the budget a la Obama??
"No excuses. If you have a plan, present it and allow people to see it, understand it, and sign on to it... otherwise, it's clear that it's not a real plan..."
Unbelievable. I keep saying the same thing to you about Obama and
yet you CONTINUE to insist he has a plan that apparently you, and only you, know about.
Where is it, Larry? Who is the hypocrite again?
If Obama had no plan then why did Cantor walk away?
What was Cantor negotiating with Biden if not a compromise plan?
Once Cantor walked away and said that new revenue was not acceptable as a "balanced" plan then WHERE is the plan he wants that has only cuts?
Obama has said repeatedly that his plan is essentially based on the deficit commission plans that have BOTH CUTS and revenues and Obama has said he is willing to cut entitlements but that we cannot make balance without more revenues.
It is up to the people who say that we don't need more revenues to get to balance.
If you make that claim then you have to produce a plan.
The idiot Republicans had 8 years to produce a plan for balance and they did nothing.
The VERY SAME idiot Republicans now refuse to accept a compromise that both deficit commissions advocated - as well as supply-side guru David Stockman...
where is the cuts-only plan?
unprincipled hypocrites are what you call these folks.
8 years to do something..they did NOTHING and now they STILL do nothing.. and it's Obama's fault?
ha ha ha Paul.. you're a funny guy.
re: Paul Ryan's "plan". 30 billion in cuts? out of a 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit and a 14+ trillion debt and WHEN does Ryan's "plan" make "balance"?
and does he name the 1.5 trillion in "eventual" cuts?
Nope.
Because his plan is bogus to the bone.. and depends on ...you guess it supply side to make it.. and assumes a3% unemployment rate - and takes what..30 years?
are you kidding me?
"If Obama had no plan then why did Cantor walk away?"
They were having a meeting about cutting the deficit. You DO NOT NEED A PLAN on paper to just have a meeting. If Obama has a plan then why can't you produce it? Why doesn't his own spokesman know anything about it? You are the only person in the universe who asserts Obama has a plan.
Obama has SAID alot of things. Everybody knows he wants to raise taxes on the most productive people. Where does he want to CUT Larry? Since you are the keeper of the super secret Obama plan, that should be an easy answer.
Link to his super awesome tax-the-shit-out-of-job-creators plan, or STFU.
"where is the cuts-only plan?"
Good Lord.Ive given you numerous example is this thread. But You have yet to offer Obama's plan.
WHERE IS IT? SHOW ME THE MONEY.
Paul - there was a plan. Cantor agreed to the "cut" part of it but he walked away from the "revenue" part of it and he NEVER provided the "cut only" plan he wanted.
and you know why?
because, like all the rest of the Republicans he has NO PLAN that achieves balance with cuts only.
If they had such a plan, they're present it in a heartbeat and totally undermine Obama but they don't so they run and hide.
Obama's "plan"... INCLUDES revenues.
Cantor got a look at that part of the plan and ran away.
How else do you explain Cantor running away?
did Cantor run away from a "cut only" plan?
ha ha ha
Nope.
The man ran away from a plan that had both cuts and revenues ...and said.. he could not agree to revenues.
A PRINCIPLED PERSON would THEN EXPLAIN what they wanted instead.
But Cantor and the Republicans are not principled conservatives but instead weasels.
they're the same weasels that exploded the deficit under Bush and now piously say that we can balance with cuts only - but won't show how... and refuse to pay for the two wars either.
that's not a principled position.
Obama has said that he wants something like the TWO (count them) deficit commission plans and so has supply-sider David Stockman.
Obama has a plan. It includes BOTH cuts and revenues.
Mr. Cantor took one look at that plan and ran and hid.
then Mr. Boehmer did the same thing.
hypocrites and undisciplined weasels they are....
Paul, my man... is this a plan?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
Paul.. how about this one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp
Larry,
You seriously linked Obama's FY2012 $3.73 trillion dollar budget with a projected deficit of $1.6 trillion?? He charts a course to run the debt to 77% of GDP by 2021. That's the awesome plan that made Cantor pee his pants? After all this, that's the plan(that I mentioned several times, by the way) you were talkng about? The one that was voted down unanimously in the Senate?
As for the other link, no, sorry not a plan:
"The President has asked Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader Pelosi and Minority Leader McConnell to each designate four Members from their caucuses to participate in bipartisan, bicameral negotiations led by the Vice President..."
That's just some claptrap about the 2nd deficit commission Obama created after he completely blew off the Simpson-Bowles commission.
"How else do you explain Cantor running away?"
Obama said he wanted to raise taxes. That's not an itemized plan, douchebag.
"Obama has said that he wants something like the TWO (count them) deficit commission plans .."
There were 2 commissions because Obama did not support Simpson-Bowles. WHY WOULD HE NEED 2 commissions otherwise? He wanted a second opinion and so sent in his half-wit VP to conduct a commission to raise taxes.
You are really making a fool of yourself, Larry. I cannot believe you actually linked Obama's 2012 budget as proof as his plan. Wow.
Paul,
And you thought Benji was fun? You may have just found a new hobby.
Cantor and his buddy hypocrites messed their pants because they have no plan other than some supply-side idiocy like Ryan.
If the Republicans had a real plan, they would have walked away from the negotiations and said that revenues were not needed and presented their "cut-only" plan that would then seriously mess up the President and show everyone that he was advocating taxes when cuts-alone would do the job.
But that did not happen and still has not happened because the idiot Republicans want to do the same thing they did under Bush - cut taxes and blame the deficit and debt on someone else rather than taking responsibility for the problem.
We OWE the 14+ trillion. We're NOT going to create 14+ trillion worth of additional revenues from tax cuts ... not even the Republicans dare make that claim.
So how do we pay this debt?
what are your answers?
Or are you just like your Republican buddies - ?
talk about making a fool of yourself...
"There were 2 commissions because Obama did not support Simpson-Bowles. WHY WOULD HE NEED 2 commissions otherwise?"
there were TWO commissions because the second one was an independent commission done virtually concurrently with the first.
The Republicans and Conservative groups could have also created their Commission to do THEIR PLAN but you know what The Republicans are fools like you because they know they can't get there with cuts alone.
The only "plan" the Republicans had ..before they ran away from it.was Ryans idiotic supply-side plan that takes 30 years to reach balance and counts on a 3% unemployment rate.
hypocrites and fools... my man.
Hey Larry,
What? You aren't defending Obama's FY 2012 budget now? You just told me that was his scary smart plan. What happened?? Oh, that's the right, you have no idea what you are talking about.
"The only "plan" the Republicans had ..before they ran away from it.was Ryans idiotic supply-side plan that takes 30 years to reach balance and counts on a 3% unemployment rate."
Which, to date, is better than ANYTHING Obama has offered. You admitted as much when you finally just offered up his FY2012 budget as proof. Ryan's plan would have cut $30 billion from next year's budget alone. Under Obama's FY2012 budget, total spending would increase 49 percent over the next 10 years.
But besides, you're just lying through your teeth. "Cut, Cap, and Balance" was defeated in Harry Reid's Senate so Obama didn't have to veto it. That also would have done it. Where is the Democrat version of "Cut, Cap, and Balance?"
There isn't one. Obama offers only taxes, but he has NO PLAN to balance the budget. Ever. You obviously aren't even aware of this since, all together now, YOU LINKED TO HIS MONSTROUS SPENDING BILL FOR FY2012.
"there were TWO commissions because the second one was an independent commission done virtually concurrently with the first."
Uh, no it wasn't. Biden's commission was started after Simpson-Bowles was blown off by Obama. YOu are now disputing chronology?
Larry, I've got a budget that's even better, it gets us a surplus in one year, just by cutting all the fat. I'd gladly vote for this budget, I guess I can count on your vote too? :)
Okay, I give Sprewell and Stossel GET CREDIT for a REAL PROPOSAL.
No very realistic politically... but way, way more credible than ANYTHING
I've seen from the folks who are saying we can get there with "cuts only".
"No very realistic politically... but way, way more credible than ANYTHING
I've seen from the folks who are saying we can get there with "cuts only"."
Ahh, Larry...did you see anything in Stossel's list that wasn't a cut? Did you see any tax increases?
Just as I thought. Another reference you didn't spend much time with, or didn't understand.
How can you ever learn if you won't read?
re: "learning" ? ha ha ha
"learning" about right wing ideologues? fund but unproductive when interested in real and practical answers to problems.
"re: "learning" ? ha ha ha
"learning" about right wing ideologues? fund but unproductive when interested in real and practical answers to problems."
Can't you respond to the actual subject at hand? Is this the best you can do?
re: the subject at hand...
glad to .. once you guys come off your lame right wing idiocy.
Otherwise, you get called on it.
We have a 14 trillion dollar debt and a 1.5 trillion dollar ANNUAL deficit and this is the kind of responses we see:
" Just as I thought. Another reference you didn't spend much time with, or didn't understand."
and I'll return the favor - EVERY TIME.
when you stray off topic with your lame insults, it's coming right back at ya.
eh?
"We have a 14 trillion dollar debt and a 1.5 trillion dollar ANNUAL deficit and this is the kind of responses we see:"
Good job, Larry, you got it right this time. Words are important, have specific meanings, and you MUST use them correctly.
" Just as I thought. Another reference you didn't spend much time with, or didn't understand."
When you mis-characterize something
as you frequently do, and show by your responses to references provided that you don't understand them, you should expect people to be annoyed with you, as they have actually spent time trying to educate you, and they feel they have wasted that time. Why bother if you won't read or understand what you've read?
re: why don't YOU bother to read and understand instead of spewing lame propaganda and insults like a kindergartner?
the only thing worse that a smart-ass is an arrogant one and guess what, you qualify.
"re: why don't YOU bother to read and understand instead of spewing lame propaganda and insults like a kindergartner?"
But I do read and understand, Larry, That's not a problem for me.
I'm suggesting you might improve your understanding of issues being discussed, and thereby contribute more to a discussion, rather than just pouring out stupid stuff that shows you have no clue.
Do you really not care that so many people think you're an idiot?
You can help yourself here by reading and understanding before you let your fingers start typing. I assume you can control that if you choose.
about all you understand Ron is on the level of a pit bull chewing on a bone cuz he don't know nothing better to do.
"about all you understand Ron is on the level of a pit bull chewing on a bone cuz he don't know nothing better to do."
It's not a bone, it's Asshat Larry. I'm getting tired of chewing, so I may just bury him in the back yard for a while.
naw... I bet you can't not chew it....
it's genetic
:-)
Post a Comment
<< Home