A breakdown of the debt-limit legislation

For those looking for what is in the bill that passed Congress today and the president signed, ending a months-long stalemate between the two parties, here's a breakdown below. (Click here for the full legislation.)

The Budget Control Act of 2011
1.      Ten-year discretionary caps with sequester
a.       Enforces limits on discretionary spending until 2021

2.      Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment
a.       Requires that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
b.      Reinstates and modifies certain budget process rules.
c.       Allows for certain amounts of additional spending for “program integrity” initiatives aimed at reducing the amount of improper benefit payments.

advertisement
advertisement

3.      Debt Ceiling disapproval process
a.       Debt ceiling disapproved and budget goal enforced
b.      If the committee cannot come up with a solution to the deficit by the end of 2011, $1.2 trillion dollars will be cut – half from defense spending and half from non-defense spending, such as possibly from Medicare

4.      Joint Select Committee on deficit reduction
a.       Establishes a procedure to increase the debt limit by $400 billion initially and procedures that would allow the limit to be raised further in two additional steps, for a cumulative increase of between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion
b.      Creates a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction, with a stated goal of achieving at least $1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years
c.       Establishes automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such savings.

5.      Pell Grant and student loan program changes
a.       Makes changes to the Pell Grant and student loan programs.
b.      Terminates authority to make interest subsidized loans to graduate and professional students.
c.       Terminates direct loan repayment incentives.

advertisement
advertisement

Discuss this post

Jump to discussion page: 1 2

"Vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment"

That will truly be a "Satan Sandwich" for the numerous Democratic Senators whose seats are in dire jeopardy in 2012...

  • 6 votes
#1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 2:58 PM EDT

They'll need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate in order to send it to the States. I don't see that happening.

  • 17 votes
#1.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:00 PM EDT

The Jello President sure folded under pressure on this issue.

Now Obama is going out campaigning, trying to explain to America why he should lead for four more years, even though he hasn't led on anything yet.

  • 16 votes
#1.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:12 PM EDT

Bob,

Do you even remotely understand why a "Balanced Budget Amendment" is simply not feasible? Here's what it boils down to...

Nation X attacks Israel. Israel fights back against Nation X. However, because Israel attacks Nation X, Nation Y and Nation Z join the war. Israel seeks assistance and asks the United States to assist them. Military assistance, however, will cost money.

What are we supposed to say?

"Well, we'd love to help but we have a balanced budget amendment and there's no money available for us to do anything. Sorry."

How's that going to work out?

  • 20 votes
#1.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:20 PM EDT

Noid-

In times of emergency (war), they can vote to spend more money irregardless of the "balanced budget"

  • 7 votes
#1.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:22 PM EDT

The Jello President sure folded under pressure on this issue

He sure did!

He walked away with half of what he originally offered!

No matter how you spin it honey, 4.2 trillion is still > then 2.1...

lol

  • 26 votes
#1.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:26 PM EDT

Are we looking at QE3?

  • 4 votes
#1.6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:30 PM EDT

Are we looking at QE3?

QE1 and QE2 worked so well. What's the dollar valued at these days?

One positive about Obama signing the McConnell/Boehner bill - now Timmy Geithner can "quit".

  • 11 votes
#1.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:42 PM EDT

"Are we looking at QE3?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the FED prints another trillion with "real prices" going up on all the essentials the way they have been it will be enough to break the backs of another million Americans just getting by, all the rich cats love that money at 0% interest, they can use it to build another plant in China or by back some stock, but one thing you can be sure of not one thin dime of it will trickle down to main street u.s.a.

  • 11 votes
#1.8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:53 PM EDT

The GOPTP's balanced buget amendment in Cut, Cap, Balance also established a 2/3 majority vote requirement to pass any tax adjustments, increases or decreases--thus enshrining the Grover Nordquist insanity into the Constitution. In times of war or natural disaster, a balanced budget constitutional amendment would mean no future Congress or President of either party could ever do what was necessary in times of emergency.

FYI, my money says even Presidents Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 would veto it.

  • 11 votes
#1.9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:53 PM EDT

No, no the old gal is totally correct - the conservatives got run. This is a total victory for Obama and the dems. This is everything they campaigned for, everything they wanted to do once in control.

It is everything, right Feisty, right libbies?

Any who, looks like us economically illiterate conservatives [shout out to my boy Job1, who is super well versed in all things economic, accounting, and tax], are just going to have to get used to these types of beatings.

In fact, given that we just started the top end of the double dip, I'll be looking for Obama to be using the full might of his economic and taxation powers to ramp us back up.

In other words us conservatives are in store for a steady string of crushing defeats like this one, likely for at least the next year and a half.

OOOOO the humanity. :)

  • 12 votes
#1.10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:55 PM EDT

70%+ approval with the American public for a balanced budget amendment.

Get them all on the record.

All of them.

It looks like we're going to, doesn't it?

  • 9 votes
#1.11 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:56 PM EDT

Bernanke is desperate.

Deplorable gdp numbers since January.

Deplorable job creation numbers as well.

QE3...?

Hmmm...

  • 6 votes
#1.12 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:00 PM EDT

Feisty,

Yep, the GOP could have had 4trillion is cuts, but they said not, that was the First Proposal, GOP do not know anything about budgets, just how to spend.

  • 11 votes
#1.13 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:01 PM EDT

So the libbies must be in a pretty bad funk.

So many hard core/Libs r us not even participating lately.

poor libbies. I almost feel bad - just a couple years ago they were on top of the world.

Now all poor Feisty can do is chant to herself that the tea party lost.

So sad.

Or is it thay are all out looking for jobs, now that the tit is going dry?

  • 11 votes
#1.14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:10 PM EDT

w bush said: all the rich cats love that money at 0% interest, they can use it to build another plant in China or by back some stock, but one thing you can be sure of not one thin dime of it will trickle down to main street u.s.a.

I guess it took a rich cat to block the building and operation of a Boeing plant in the Carolinas. One rich cat indeed.

  • 9 votes
#1.15 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:11 PM EDT

MJL-3...

Back in December, the President's own debt commission said $4 trillion in cuts...

President Obama, in effect, said thanks...but no thanks.

Wonder how he feels about that decision today.

I already know what House Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer thinks...

But, maybe someone should ask the President.

Again.

Maybe someone like...

Chuck Todd.

Again.

  • 9 votes
#1.16 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:13 PM EDT

Yep, the GOP could have had 4trillion is cuts

Yup MJL3 - but those stubborn tea baggers couldn't say yes to revenue increases...

So now they get HALF! lol

People can say what they want about the President's negotiating skills, at the end of the day, he 'rolled' them...

Tell us again who's serious about debt reduction? lol

  • 13 votes
#1.17 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:18 PM EDT

Why is it that only Dem sacred cow programs get cut? There are plenty of things that the corporate/repub party hold near and dear that most would not mind seeing trimmed down. Shared sacrifice is what will happen eventually, it always does, may not be through the political system, but everyone will pay one way or another.

  • 4 votes
#1.18 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:21 PM EDT

Perhaps the thing that bothers me most about this whole deal is how Congress played this till the last possible moment for effect, took a bow, and then, greeted with silence from the crowd, gave a cheery wave and departed on a long, undeserved vacation, leaving a reeling stock market (down 8 straight days and 265.87 today alone), and no concrete answers about unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, HCR, or anything else.

And the "deal" won't even prevent a downgrade of our credit rating.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/02/debt-rating-downgrade-standard-poors/?iid=HP_Highlight

Just what they think they're going to "campaign" on for the next few weeks escapes me entirely.

news/economy/debt_ceiling_deficit_hawks/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

But, hey, my money's under the mattress. If only for that, someone ought to listen to me.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/02/markets/dollar_outlook/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

  • 16 votes
#1.19 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:26 PM EDT

Are you kidding tell me if any of them were serious? Did they really get anything done?

  • 3 votes
#1.20 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:33 PM EDT

Feisty, girl...

President Obama "rolled them"?

Really...?

What's the national narrative, Feisty?

What's likely to be the national narrative between now, and November 2012?

"Investments"...?

Or, cuts in government spending and debt?

Really, Feisty?

Really?

  • 9 votes
#1.21 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:34 PM EDT

This is the biggest joke ever played on the citizens of the US. No big cuts, no new revenue, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the stock market continues to tank because the stupid TeaParty refused a real, balanced deal, just to pay homage to their master Grover Norquist. They still want to destroy the FAA because their real purpose is to finally destroy the Unions, so real workers have no more protections, always going backward, never forward. Totally disgusting.

Who wins? No one.

  • 10 votes
#1.22 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:44 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/18/995602/-Middle-Man-and-the-Debt-Ceiling-Debacle

"Gasp! No one could have foreseen this!"

____________________________________________________________________________

All cuts, no new revenues, and no guarantee of anything beyond more cuts in the next round...How anyone who calls themselves "progressive" could consider this a victory is a mystery to me.

  • 6 votes
#1.23 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:46 PM EDT

...How anyone who calls themselves "progressive" could consider this a victory is a mystery to me.

Yea ..... Feisty's dysfunction was evidently a mystery to her treatment team as well, they certainly never remediated anything.

  • 10 votes
#1.24 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:59 PM EDT

dangerfield said: All cuts, no new revenues, and no guarantee of anything beyond more cuts in the next round...How anyone who calls themselves "progressive" could consider this a victory is a mystery to me.

Progressive victory... hmmmmm... would progressive victory have meant, unbridled spending? No cuts? Increased taxes? unlimited debt ceiling?

If that is progressive victory, I'm glad it came out the way it did.

  • 5 votes
#1.25 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:03 PM EDT

Yup MJL3 - but those stubborn tea baggers couldn't say yes to revenue increases...

So now they get HALF! lol

People can say what they want about the President's negotiating skills, at the end of the day, he 'rolled' them...

Tell us again who's serious about debt reduction? lol

Yep and some on the Vine denie the 4 Trillion that was first offered and Obama ok'd, they just have very poor recollection I guess, CRS, cant remember @!$%#

  • 5 votes
#1.26 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:09 PM EDT

dangerfield- it really just looks like the poor libbies are just now, for the very first times figuring out 1. that they lost the 2010 election, and 2. the consequences of that loss.

So not a mystery as much as just simple ignorance. Which of course was bliss. Until Sunday night at about 9:00 p.m.

Yey Obama!

Plus let's face it - it is also dawning on them that they have lost the national argument that they thought they had won in 2008.

So now what do we get? A bunch of losers, sore losers, and bad losers calling everybody names - "Taliban" "terrorists" or my favorite from Job1 "economic illiterates."

Ouch. So is it sticks and stones, or just words hurt?

Libbies, end game here?

  • 5 votes
#1.27 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:14 PM EDT

Yep and some on the Vine denie the 4 Trillion that was first offered and Obama ok'd

My Grampa used to call that - 'biting off your nose to spite your face'... lol

The tea baggers are proving themselves to be very proficient at it!

  • 9 votes
#1.28 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:16 PM EDT

Spanky and Mixed Bag

My answer to your posts directed at me.

OBAMA 2012

GOP WILL be out in 2012

  • 9 votes
#1.29 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:19 PM EDT

Progressive victory... hmmmmm... would progressive victory have meant, unbridled spending? No cuts? Increased taxes? unlimited debt ceiling?

______________________________________________________________________________

This would be what I mean...

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/news/cochairs-proposal

Your side is just as one sided as the other side. We need to reform the tax code, revise and strengthen entitlements, And cut spending.

You need all three components to succeed. A one-legged stool just isn't practical, and that's exactly what the president's bi-partisan commission recommended. All three legs or you don't have a leg to stand on...:)

  • 5 votes
#1.30 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:20 PM EDT

OK, right-wingers, I've been hearing about uncertainty quite long enough. Please tell me how the noble rich folks - I'm sorry, make that job creators - got any sort of certainty out of this package. Virtually everything is still open to negotiation.

Looks pretty damned uncertain to me. Oh wait! I get it. That's going to be the excuse again. "We're still uncertain."

Sorry America. No jobs. The big money boys are still uncertain.

By the way, the Balanced Budget Amendment is just another distraction. It will not and cannot be approved. When written, the amendment will be exposed for what it is - handcuffs and shackles on government. That cannot be allowed. Only the TEA Party illiterates do not understand the incredible stupidity of such an amendment.

  • 6 votes
#1.31 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:26 PM EDT

Please define "Tea Party illiterates" David.

And as indicated above, if that is true, what does that say about the dems? How on earth could 60 House "illiterates" control the narrative so such a degree?

You know, like Obama saying he would veto anything without tax increases, um, I mean, a balanced approach. Yet it's not there.

So again, definition please. Then if you want to really show off please apply that definition, whatever it is, to Obama and Reid.

  • 6 votes
#1.32 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:40 PM EDT

dangerfield said: You need all three components to succeed. A one-legged stool just isn't practical, and that's exactly what the president's bi-partisan commission recommended. All three legs or you don't have a leg to stand on...:)

Dangerfield, what we need is better control. The spending in government is anything but under control. The beaurocrats in Washington spend way too much without watching the bottom line. No one is in charge of spending. There is so much waste in government it isn't funny. There's multiple departments that go over the same work, there's multiple levels of unnecessary paperwork, there's multiple supervisors over each section and the list goes on and on.

I would have no problem supporting increases in taxes if the government would show some better control. It might even come to the fact that increased spending might be tamed if they would exercise more governance over departmental spending.

How many federal goverment offices are there in this country? There has to be thousands... and that doesn't include the wasteful spending in Washington DC alone.

This only covers one aspect of government spending... how about the corruption?

  • 3 votes
#1.33 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:43 PM EDT

David Walker - I wouldn't bet the farm on there not being a balanced budget ammendment coming to a local government office near you. Just because you libbies feel like you are being boxed in, doesn't mean that the rest of America isn't supportive of it.

  • 5 votes
#1.34 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:47 PM EDT

Brianb - After the last election, I don't do a whole lot of predicting. However, I'd bet that when the public realizes that hamstringing the government is the net effect of the proposed amendment, when they understand the ramifications, they won't like it.

Additionally, given the reliance of the states on federal largesse, I'd bet that they will not exactly be in a hurry to ratify an amendment that has the potential to kill the golden goose, their lender of last resort.

Boehner's justification for this was basically that Congress couldn't be trusted to do the right thing. (It was also a bone for the illiterates.) One deficit after another tends to confirm that. It's pretty sad that Boehner is saying we're electing people who can't control themselves.

Boxed in? You don't put government in a straitjacket - the legislators maybe - but not the government.

  • 4 votes
#1.35 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:04 PM EDT

In reviewing Obama's 2012 Budget projections, this is what he shows for the next 10 years (2012 – 2021) with regard to the Social Security and Medicare programs;

Social Security;

Total Social Security Revenues = $8.937 Trillion.

Total Social Security Expenditures = $9.932 Trillion.

Total 10 year Deficit for Social Security = $995 Billion.

Medicare/Medicaid;

Total Medicare Revenues = $2.733 Trillion.

Total Medicare/Medicaid Expenditures = $10.807 Trillion.

Total 10 year Deficit for Medicare/Medicaid = $8.074 Trillion.

It should be noted that these programs currently have 'surplus' (a) Trust Funds held by the government in an amount exceeding $3 Trillion, so it would be quite some time before those Trust Fund balances would be exhausted, but the trend is obvious, and so there must be something done to restore them to a sound fiscal basis, either through benefit changes or payroll tax increases, or a combination of both. Interestingly, the total projected Deficits over the next 10 years amounts to $7.205 Trillion, so the Medicare/Medicaid programs alone account for 112% of the total Deficits over the next 10 years.

(a) – The 'Trust Fund' balances are not actual cash balances, but are IOUs from the Federal Government and the money that should be in the accounts was spent and must be repaid through increased taxes on future taxpayers. The reader must determine for themselves whether that was appropriate.

This information is being provided so the readers will at least have some basic knowledge of the current status of these programs, which seems to be sadly lacking from media reporting.

Source - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf See Table S-3

    #1.36 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 11:16 AM EDT

    Da Noid and Jody obviously don't know what a budget is. A budget is expected and planned spending. Anything that was unexpected and unplanned is never included in the budget. Ever. And yet we still pay for unexpected and unplanned national disasters and wars and such, even with a budget (balanced or not). A balanced budget amendment would mean nothing to emergency situations. It would only mean that the proposed budget in congress has to be less than or equal to the expected income of the government for that year. Since the budget is only a plan, not what actually happens, and income projections are rarely perfectly accurate, both surpluses and deficits would still be possible. We just wouldn't be allowed to plan on deficit spending.

      #1.37 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 1:20 PM EDT

      C. Smith

      Finally, someone that understands how things work.

        #1.38 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:06 PM EDT
        Reply
        advertisement
        advertisement

        It is slightly amusing to substitute Satan for the real word. This is a crap sandwich of the first order (odor).

        • 6 votes
        Reply#2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:00 PM EDT

        The interesting thing about a sh!t sandwich is that the more bread you have, the less sh!t you eat. Which is apparently the case with this deal and the current Congress.

          #2.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:15 PM EDT

          If your sh*t sandwich has 1/2 c of sh*t spread on it and you eat it on thin sliced bread, you eat 1/2 c sh*t. If you substitute Texas toast for the thin sliced you are still eating 1/2 c of sh*t.

          • 1 vote
          #2.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 8:50 PM EDT
          Reply

          The problem is this legislation PERMITS Government to KEEP SPENDING and BORROWING

          Geithner ALREADY proposed ISSUING NEW DEBT in DOUBLE last year amount

          _______________________________________________________________________________________

          Watch what they DO not what they SAY

          • 2 votes
          Reply#3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:11 PM EDT

          Yes, those darn republicans have been claiming to be fiscally responsible for 30 years, cutting taxes to unsustainable levels and spending like drunken sailors (no offense to our fine military folks). I watched what Reagan said and then what he did--and became a democrat. To date, the GOP has done nothing to change my mind. In fact, Bush 43 reinforced my decision. The democrats aren't perfect but at least they're honest about "tax and spend" rather than "cut taxes and charge it."

          • 14 votes
          #3.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:00 PM EDT

          Jody,

          The GOP had no problem with GW running up an 11.6 Trillion dollar deficit, The walking out in the debt ceiling talks not once but 4 times, by Boehner (twice) and then 3 others? They have really shown theirselve for what they really are Norquist Puppets, but Tax loop holes WILL be cut. I guarantee that one.

          Obama and Biden were the only Adults in the room with the GOP.

          • 7 votes
          #3.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:23 PM EDT

          I find it really interesting that liberals are for increased taxes.

          Hey libbies... go ahead and send the government all your money. We won't mind a bit. If it makes you feel better, do it!

          The best way to lead is by example... show us your stuff!

          • 4 votes
          #3.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:23 PM EDT

          brianb

          Where the @!$%# do you think R E V E N U E comes from, a Tree????

          The Tax "increases" are the @!$%#ing LOOP HOLE GW GAVE big buisness, it needs to STOP

          By the GOP signing the pledge with Norquist and not raising the tax ENHANCEMENTs, this WILL hurt the GOP

          Ever seen

          republicansforobama.com?

          It's REAL, piss of Repubs BELIEVE in OBAMA

          OBAMA 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          DEMS WILL RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          GOP in 2010 ran on Jobs and @!$%#ed over their followers L M A O at them,

          • 6 votes
          #3.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:34 PM EDT

          Oh, no, Brianb:

          We are ALL going to take our cue from you and the Republicans and not pay ANYTHING in taxes to our government. That way we can shut it down completely and just disolve this country; hey - maybe Canada or Mexico will be willing to annex us.

          Imbeciles!

          • 3 votes
          #3.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:35 PM EDT

          "DEMS WILL RULE!!!!!!!"

          Yeah I remember all the way back to 2009 when they said the republican party was dead, it was the new democrat rule, for 40 years.

          You libbies need to get together and pick: terrorists, imbeciles, economic illiterates...smells a tad desperate, no?

          • 3 votes
          #3.6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:45 PM EDT

          Sounds to me like the libbies have reached a tipping point. I suggest they give the government as much money as they can and they lash out at me. I wonder why. As if I didn't realize that revenue doesn't come from taxes... sheesh... dumb libbies. I can't understand why they don't want to give up their money... after all it's them that keep on pushing for higher taxes... so I suggest they lead by example. Let them pay more in taxes... they are free to send the IRS as much as they want.

          • 3 votes
          #3.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:53 PM EDT

          You guys REALLY and truly don't get it do you?

          I thought you were just playing partisan political games, but now I see you really are clueless.

          UNBELIEVABLE!

          • 5 votes
          #3.8 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:49 AM EDT

          Well, get this:::::::::::::Us Lefties tried to warn you, but WE told YA SOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Well it's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Mitch
          McConnell Admits That Hostage-Taking Is Exactly What the GOP Did

          8/3/11 at 2:06 PM

          Photo:
          Astrid Riecken/Getty Images

          “I
          think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you
          might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did
          learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the
          Congress on something that must be done.” — Senate
          Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, on the GOP. Don't call them terrorists though.
          [WP via Political Wire]

          http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/mitch_mcconnell_okay_fine_were.html

          Alex
          Seitz-Wald | Wonk Room
          Wednesday, August 3

          McConnell
          Admits To Taking Debt Ceiling ‘Hostage’: It’s ‘Worth Ransoming’

          In a stunning bit of candor,
          Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) admitted in the Washington Post
          today that his party had taken the debt ceiling "hostage... Read
          Full Blog Post »

          http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/1/mcconnell_admits_to_taking_debt_ceiling_hostage_its_worth_ransoming/

          Mitch McConnell admits to GOP political terrorism

          Posted
          on
          Wednesday, August 3, 2011,
          4:38 pm
          by GottaLaff

          Of course he’s
          not! Scandalous! How could anyone ever believe such a thing about any member
          the GOP? Outrageous!

          Thank goodness Mitch McConnell can
          set the record straight!

          I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a
          hostage you might take a chance at shooting
          . Most of us didn’t
          think that. What we did learn is this –
          it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.
          And it focuses the
          Congress on something that must be done.”

          – Senate Minority Leader Mitch
          McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the Washington Post, on the debt ceiling negotiations.

          Source: Taegan, of course.

          http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2011/08/03/mitch-mcconnell-admits-

          • 3 votes
          #3.9 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:20 PM EDT

          You righties fell for the GOP /TP BS hook line and sinker

          • 2 votes
          #3.10 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 10:22 PM EDT
          Reply
          advertisement
          advertisement

          Seriously, what did everyone expect when you have a deal that has no revenue increases and cuts only.

          Bi-partisan agreement in both Houses so there is equal blame.

          The President signed the bill into law....could have vetoed it.

          What did he sign?

          A framework for $1 trillion in cuts...cuts only.

          Pell grants...first to be mentioned.

          Medicare...education....social service programs....government agency funding....the list is enormous.

          The job losses will push unemployment back over 10% possibly higher..

          But wait...there is a silver lining.

          The President took debt ceiling talks off the table until after the election.

          Big win for him. The rest of us...not so much.

          ...and taking another trillion dollars out of the economy now will expand our economy how?

          Lets check the markets...

          U.S. equity indices are trading lower Tuesday as investors continue to be concerned over the health of the recovery.

          The Commerce Department reported that consumers cut spending in June by the biggest amount in two years. Analysts had predicted a slight increase. Incomes rose by the smallest amount since September, reflecting a weak job market.

          This President needs to learn how to negotiate with Congress and actually take a position and not deviate from it.

          Everything that will happen to the economy as a result of the President signing this bill into law is on his shoulders.

          All he had to do was endorse his own debt commission recommendations...but he abandoned it because he said defense spending was too high. Seems like a half trillion is coming from defense now and if no one can come up with solutions to reduce debt a trigger of possible another half trillion more from defense. Wait...that's a trillion.

          This just can't get much worse...

          • 7 votes
          #4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:19 PM EDT

          What did everyone expect when they gave the House to the Republicans in 2010? This is the Republican agenda.

          • 14 votes
          #4.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:28 PM EDT

          IR: The President took debt ceiling talks off the table until after the election.

          Big win for him. The rest of us...not so much

          Oh, I would think it would come up once or twice during the campaign.

          This President needs to learn how to negotiate with Congress and actually take a position and not deviate from it.

          Second part first. Obama takes no position. Like he has said, "I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." Obama has also said: "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete." No kidding.

          Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/obama_scores_as_an_exotic_who.html

          Without Obama taking a position, he cannot negotiate with anyone, let alone Congress, a Congress with a GOP that firmly understands and knows what it believes in.

          • 6 votes
          #4.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:29 PM EDT

          JoAnnaSmith1..

          Seriously, you think this legislation is GOOD for the country?

          You think taking $2.8 trillion out of this economy growing...last quarter..at 1.3% is a good idea?

          You don't think that it will reverse any recovery we may have had?

          You don't think it will lead to more unemployment?

          You're gloating about this?

          Seriously...it's a disaster.

          • 13 votes
          #4.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:40 PM EDT

          Ira,

          You don't understand. It is unfair that the poor don't pay more in tax and get all these freebees. Just because they are unemployed and starving - they should contribute their fair share to the country.

          It is unfair that the rich have to pay so much (15%) total federal tax on their unearned income (dividends). They worked hard to inherit this money, and it is not right to expect them to pay any to support the country. They are already contributing pain & sacrifice by giving up 15%.

          It is unfair that the middle class only pay only 26% total federal tax on their earnings. After all, these bums are the ones drawing unemployment and social security when they retire. Without social security - they will have to stay in the job market (supply & demand --- more workers means lower wages for the rich employers). And no medicare means that the useless (non-workers) will die off - opening more jobs.

          So - gutting social security and gutting medicare is good for the country. No social security means more workers. No medicare means the sick / elderly / useless will die off and free up jobs - lowering unemployment.

          You see - the republicans are really out for your best interests. Don't get taken in by the lies that loosing Social Security and Medicare will hurt you...

          • 7 votes
          #4.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:46 PM EDT

          Well Ira, we're at the point at least where we can pick our own disasters. A few more years of spending like Obama and the Democrats had been, and we'd even lose that choice to our creditors.

          So what was your idea of a good time Ira - taking $500 billion more a year out of the American taxpayers pockets with a tax hike? Think that would help business?

          You don't think it will lead to more unemployment?

          What's leading to more unemployment is the constant drum-beat by Obama that he's coming after businesses, corporate jet owners and oil companies, or who ever he terms "rich", and he's going to make them pay their "fair-share". Throw in enough regulations and new entitlements like ObamaCare, along with old entitlements that are going bankrupt, and you can see US businesses are getting a little spooked about who is really going to pay for all these bills. Not exactly the greatest environoment for them to hire.

          What happened today isn't going to make a dent one way or another in unemployment. Nobody said it would. With Obama's constant anti-business threats, unemployment won't change until we change who is President.

          You think taking $2.8 trillion out of this economy growing...last quarter..at 1.3% is a good idea?

          Obama and the Democrats just got done spending $4 trillion in deficit spending in 2.5 years, and that's what we get for a GDP, 1.3%. Kind of makes you think the spending didn't work too well.

          In addition to the anti-business Obama, the other real problem with the economy continues to be the housing/mortgage crisis. Until people can get out of debt, out from under their bankruptcies, out from theirunder-water loans, there won't be any demand, and there won't be a recovery.

          • 5 votes
          #4.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:56 PM EDT

          interested observer..

          I don't understand?

          Geez...the rich got richer, if you will, starting in 1981 with the invention of trickle down economics. From 1981 until...well today..over 80% of the nations wealth was transferred to 2% of all Americans who now hold it. This was done through tax cuts, incentives and subsidies. Wealth transfer was legislated by law.

          The middle class lost their "wealth" if you will as their incomes were not high enough to be included in the lucky few that were able to take advantage of the new tax incentives. That means you and me.

          The rest of what you wrote is pure nonsense...bums on unemployment and people drawing social security...really...stop watching FOX and Google some of the things you just portrayed as fact and you will find them to be a fantasy.

          If you believe that gutting the social safety nets we have in place is GOOD for the economy, well there's a political party just tailor made for you....Hint: TP

          • 5 votes
          #4.6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:59 PM EDT

          I think the existence of this bill is fantastic for the country. She just might get saved yet.

          While the bill itself is kinda stinky, the fact that Obama and the dems swallowed it down like the useful idiots they are is great. It is the total opposite of everything they are and stand for. In other words it is the opposite of the insane spending ways that got us to the $14.5 Trillion debt, and the $65 trillion in hard expenses we are on the hook for.

          So you see IRA, the narrative is now ONLY about cuts, reductions and hard limits. This bill is just a start. There will be no talk about stimulus, QE3, or tax hikes.

          The fact that Obama has not gotten the memo shows exactly how far out of touch he is.

          You see Ira you got to hit bottom before you can improve. We are getting close.

          But answer this - if Pelosi were still speaker and there was no tea party, where the hech would we be then? Thank you so much Pelosi for jamming Obamacare down our throats.

          Some might call that "terrorist" but I say thank you, you beautiful overreaching dems. Kisses.

          • 7 votes
          #4.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:04 PM EDT

          Ira---what would you have had the President do differently in the face of Tea Party intransigence? Veto it and allow default? Invoke the 14th Amendment & litigate that?

          • 4 votes
          #4.8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:06 PM EDT

          JoAnnaSmith1..

          You know JoAnna, it' funny how you skew the issues.

          Yep...Obama spent about $3 trillion dollars since he's been in office. Debt is $15 trillion. That means...by simple subtraction...George W spent $12 trillion. Obama's spending was on wars he inherited but were unfunded, Medicare Part D, unfunded, oh the bailout of the banks so the US banking system would not collapse and on the auto industry which would have disappeared from the US economy with all it's jobs, etc. That's what the $3 trillion was spent on.

          You're really bringing up corporate jets again...it's a depreciation change...I've told you that 50 times.

          You don't think oil subsidies should be eliminated? With the billions the oil companies make, they need to be subsidized? Really...that's your argument? He's anti- business? Where was the stock market when he took office? It came back to a healthy 12000+ level. Very anti-business when you bail out banks....under your logic we should have let then fail.

          Seriously..

          • 9 votes
          #4.9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:11 PM EDT

          See Ira, the true believers just don't understand you.

          I think it's all about there overwhelming fear of the tea party/conservatives/Dick Cheney.

          Keep on trying Ira. They may start to get it.

          • 4 votes
          #4.10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:12 PM EDT

          Steeler Fan-380417..

          Read my post..

          As a start, adopt his own commission's report and the debate never would have taken place.

          He said he would veto any legislation that didn't have revenues increases....did he? Nope..

          He is the ONLY person in America who could sign any bill into law and you're telling me that that the poor President of the US was so intimidated by 51 freshman TP congressman he just had no choice. None. He had to cave because....? Nope, I still don't get it.

          • 5 votes
          #4.11 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:17 PM EDT

          IL: George W spent $12 trillion. Obama's spending was on wars he inherited but were unfunded, Medicare Part D, unfunded, oh the bailout of the banks so the US banking system would not collapse and on the auto industry which would have disappeared from the US economy with all it's jobs, etc. That's what the $3 trillion was spent on.

          Actually GWB inherited a $5 trillion dollar debt when he became President. He doubled it, so that would be about $5 trillion and some loose change on his watch.

          But poor Obama, he had all the answers, and such promise. It's not like anyone expected him to solve all the problems, it's just that we're looking for him to solve one. He sure complains about them a lot. If Obama didn't like the wars, he could stop them, instead he started a new one (Libya) and expanded and existing one (Afghanistan). Bush didn't do that, Obama did that. If Obama didn't like Medicare-D, he had a health care bill that he could have reformed it. He didn't.

          You're really bringing up corporate jets again...it's a depreciation change...I've told you that 50 times

          Tell Obama. He won't stop talking about them.

          You don't think oil subsidies should be eliminated?

          Sure. Eliminate all subsidies, just to be fair. Ethanol, farm, green energy, student loans. All of them. Obama can have his friend Harry Reid bring them up for elimination in the Senate. He could have had his friend Nancy do in the House, but things have changed there. Obama and the Democrats talk about all these things, but they don't do a damn thing about them. Watch Obama on the campaign trail, it will be the same old tired and worn out lines without any action.

          Stock market. It's doing great. Especially the large corporations that work internationally, aka, the large caps. Business is booming, overseas. They have better businesses environments, overseas, especially Asia, which is overseas.

          Seriously..

          • 5 votes
          #4.12 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:26 PM EDT

          Joanne...

          You started this conversation with "GWB inherited a $5 trillion dollar debt when he became President. He doubled it, so that would be about $5"

          W inheritred a surplus...fact.

          Everything else you wrote is talking points...no facts...

          I do need to get back to work.

          Perhaps we can pick this up again after you catch Hannity tonight.

          • 9 votes
          #4.13 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:38 PM EDT

          Neither house passed Simpson-Bowles, so what was there to sign, Ira?

          What other leverage did the President have when the House refused to compromise? Allow the default?

          • 4 votes
          #4.14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:42 PM EDT

          Steeler Fan-380417

          Neither house passed Simpson-Bowles, so what was there to sign, Ira?

          I said ADOPT...not sign.

          It's over a year old.

          He could have started legislating ideas a YEAR AGO.

          ....and again...how did 51 Freshman TP congressman control the narrative over the POTUS?

          Once again...

          Urban legend.

          When President Reagan asked for a raise in the debt ceiling and Congress balked, he called the Congressional leaders into his office and told them that unless they raised the debt ceiling immediately, he would veto every piece of legislation that was sent to him.

          It was raised the next day.

          Say what you want about Reagan and there's a whole lot of bad @!$%#, but that's leadership.

          • 4 votes
          #4.15 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:55 PM EDT

          When President Reagan asked for a raise in the debt ceiling and Congress balked, he called the Congressional leaders into his office and told them that unless they raised the debt ceiling immediately, he would veto every piece of legislation that was sent to him.

          Difference being back then Congress actually legislated...

          12 bills in 7 months out of the 112th Congress is hardly something to CROW about!

          What's been sent to President Obama?

          BIG difference indeed...

          • 5 votes
          #4.16 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:59 PM EDT

          Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL..

          The parable I wrote wasn't about legislation, it was about leadership.

          That President took charge, twisted arms and got things done.

          This President, as Chuck Todd also pointed out yesterday, does not know how to negotiate with Congress and simply caves without a fight.

          Feisty, you of all people here, do you like this legislation? Do you think this was the best he could have done?

          It's a done deal, I know...but look at the ramifications of his reluctance to fight.

          • 5 votes
          #4.17 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:09 PM EDT

          does not know how to negotiate with Congress and simply caves without a fight.

          How does one negotiate, when the other side refuses to budge an inch?

          I think the President did the best he could under the circumstances...

          I also think that after he's re-elected there's going to be hell to pay with those who did nothing but obstruct...

          • 7 votes
          #4.18 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:22 PM EDT

          Ira - trying to explain leadership v. legislation to Feisty? OH MY>

          Ira — the national debt in when clinton left office was $5.7 tRILLION. Bush doubled that in 8 years.

          Obama's on pace to knock it out of the park.

          The surplus you refer to re: Clinton related to the yearly deficit, not debt.

          No remember "Tea-Baggers are mean and evil." That, I assure you, will get through to the old gal.

          • 5 votes
          #4.19 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:24 PM EDT

          - you think Feisty has ever negotiated aanything in her life?

          Their arguments are not winning, so they have to blame the other side.

          That's what separates and makes your tribe so great Ira. First and foremost you all tend to blame yourselves.

          • 4 votes
          #4.20 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:26 PM EDT

          Feisty

          I agree, Obama should NOT have been part of this, it is CONGRESS's responsibility but the TEA PARTY were acting like @!$%#ing 5 yrs old and Boehner has NO BALLS>

          The GOP demanded Obama to help, because they can't balance @!$%#.

          • 8 votes
          #4.21 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:27 PM EDT

          Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

          On this issue we need to agree to disagree.

          You have a good night.

          • 1 vote
          #4.22 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:27 PM EDT

          Ira:

          Joanne...

          You started this conversation with "GWB inherited a $5 trillion dollar debt when he became President. He doubled it, so that would be about $5"

          W inheritred a surplus...fact.

          Ira, I have to say, I'm really surprised at you. You're nearly, but not quite, into Feisty "intelligence" territory. Do you understand the difference between debt (total amount owed) and deficit (yearly amount in the red)?

          Bush in fact inherited about $5 trillion in DEBT. He doubled it in 8 years. Obama inherited about $10.3 trillion in DEBT. It's $14.2 trillion now - in 2.5 years - you do the math.

          Everything else you wrote is talking points...no facts...

          You're one to talk about facts.

          • 4 votes
          #4.23 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:34 PM EDT

          Amy B. Portland, ME

          What did everyone expect when they gave the House to the Republicans in 2010? This is the Republican agenda

          Absolutey, and their "Cause" was to make Obama a one term president at "ANY COST" well @!$%# them.

          • 7 votes
          #4.24 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:39 PM EDT

          On this issue we need to agree to disagree

          Enjoy your evening as well...

          • 3 votes
          #4.25 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:02 PM EDT

          Ira Lapin:

          The last time I directed a post your way, you managed to twist it into a rant about anti-Semitism - totally off base, but I now understand how you think - or don't think, more accurately. You have a mindset that makes concrete look flexible.

          Interested Observer's post was facetious; quite amusing actually. Yes, you don't understand.

          • 3 votes
          #4.26 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:49 PM EDT

          Ira,

          This President, as Chuck Todd also pointed out yesterday, does not know how to negotiate with Congress and simply caves without a fight.

          I do agree that the President caves in too much but can you honestly say that he has a choice? The Republicans got their way with extending the Bush tax cuts because they were willing to sacrifice the unemployed and the 9/11 First Responders.

          The Republicans got their way with the debt ceiling but that was because they were willing to sacrifice the country's credit rating.

          I hate the fact that Obama gives in so easily to the Republican bullies but I do understand that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice the 98% of this country's population to get their way.

          It's not about cutting the spending - if it was we wouldn't have seen increased debt, increased spending, increased unemployment, increased size of military and federal government during the Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 administration. The pattern is there.

          If it was about reducing spending, why NONE of the Republicans voted for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 -- aka the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 -- that helped us recover from the Bush Sr. mess (and unlike his so, he only had one term to spend)?

          • 4 votes
          #4.27 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 9:14 AM EDT
          Reply
          advertisement
          advertisement

          So basically this whole bill just created more bureaucracy, made it harder for students to pay for college, and fixed nothing!

          • 5 votes
          #5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:22 PM EDT

          Terminates authority to make interest subsidized loans to graduate and professional students.

          Does this mean what I think it means? The government will no longer help middleclass students join the professional class?

          • 7 votes
          #5.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:24 PM EDT

          Amy B. Portland, ME..

          Pell grants will be cut or eliminated as will all student loan programs.

          We all know how wasteful a college education is.

          Didn't he say he would save Pell Grants?

          Good news...

          The President took debt ceiling talks off the table until after the election.

          Big win for him. The rest of us...not so much.

          • 6 votes
          #5.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:26 PM EDT

          All student loan programs are ended? Are you sure about that?

          • 2 votes
          #5.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:30 PM EDT

          Amy B. Portland, ME..

          Some ended...some changed.

          Changes to the Pell Grant and student loan programs:
          Terminates authority to make interest subsidized loans to graduate and professional students.
          Terminates direct loan repayment incentives.

          A little ambiguous but you get the intent.

          • 6 votes
          #5.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:34 PM EDT

          meaning - if you want advanced education don't count on the government to subsidize interest. begs the question on if those institutions financing the loans will maintain low rates or charge whatever the market will bear.

          Regardless, there is no doubt that many programs will need to be cut or replaced by private scholarships and endowments.

          What many fail to understand, is that if we continue to selectively cut funding, much time will be lost within the context of arguing what programs to cut vs what not to cut. Cut all discretionary programs equally and let their bureaucrat managers decide on the best way to implement the cuts. You know "shared sacrifice".

          We have all seen what the results were in passing the FY2011 budget and the turmoil of getting the debt ceiling raised.

          • 4 votes
          #5.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:05 PM EDT

          Amy, keywords are "graduate students, professional students".

          • 4 votes
          #5.6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:05 PM EDT

          Golly Amy, I'm not sure you know this, or frankly could understand it anyway, but there are many, many private lenders out there for college and post grad.

          In fact they get crowded out fairly recently.

          There is no reason why this can't be handled in the private sector.

          Amy, why do you have private lenders? I have had and paid off several private student loans. No problem.

          It's only always about the government with you people. Why is that?

          • 7 votes
          #5.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:07 PM EDT

          Spanky, the majority of the loans are government backed so that students don't graduate with more debt than they already do. Republicans are big on self reliance, but how many have taken advantage of government sponsored loans and Pell grants, I'm sure all Republicans didn't start off well to do.

          • 3 votes
          #5.8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:14 PM EDT

          Speaking about higher education, perhaps those pursuing it and taking out loans to finance their education cost would do well to reflect on what the job market is likely to be in demand for and salaries offered. The internet offers up many stories of student loan debts from hell and the education paths they followed.

          • 2 votes
          #5.9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:16 PM EDT

          Lucious - government back and secured loans is exactly what ruined the real estate market. Freddie and fannie took all the risk out.

          No reason that all the loans have to be backed. Oh and most need to go to cheaper colleges. Cost today are unconscionable.

          • 7 votes
          #5.10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:22 PM EDT

          Lucious - and I am sure that not all republicans are well to do today, but everything still comes down to making the right choices in where you want to be in the future.

          BTW - if you don't inherit wealth, all one has to do to be well off is to make the right choices 51% of the time.

          • 3 votes
          #5.11 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:25 PM EDT

          Spanky, there is a difference between loans or housing and loans for education. Houses can't innovate.

          • 4 votes
          #5.12 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:27 PM EDT

          lucious - neither does education per say innovate. Many of our current crop of innovators over the past decades didn't have a university degree, but they all had an idea and persued that idea. Some even failed a number of times until the right idea took off.

          • 6 votes
          #5.13 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:57 PM EDT

          It doesn't always work out that way, american. I entered college pursuing a degree in a field of study for which the jobs all dried up before I could graduate. I was reasonably fortunate to be able to transfer some of my skills and education to an alternate field. Others are not so fortunate.

          • 3 votes
          #5.14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:12 PM EDT

          Which is why college is an "interesting" life choice. Me -I went with a degree I knew would get me a job, and which also would facilitate other jobs down the road.

          Many choose art, history or other majors that do nothing to directly prepare them for a job. I have no problem with that, but that is a choice. I'd rather not subsidize 4 - 6 years of partying.Unless I'm the one doing the partying.

          Sorry gang, we are going back to private money. The government has got too many other problems - you know the actual entitlements programs. Over promising sucks, don't it?

          • 4 votes
          #5.15 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:31 PM EDT

          OK Folks, Help me out here! Just read the summation of The Budget Control Act. Nice clean name. Emphasis on the word "control".

          The only date I could find was by" end of 2011." The total cuts will have to be made this date. Therefore the Congress will have to select members for their "super Congress committee", they come up with their cuts, if not triggers go into effect. Meanwhile both houses vote on balance budget amendment. They also have to that disapproval vote, veto by president thingy, new debt ceiling figure goes into effect.

          Now all this must be done by December 31!!! Congress will not be back to work until Sept 6. I am sure they will take a week off for Thanksgiving and two at Christmas. Plus their work week is typically Tues thru Thurs.

          They have 12 WEEKS to get this all done!?! Unbelievable!!

          No allowance for any other work , or real national crisis, home or abroad.

          Legislating by CRISIS is now the new norm for sure.!!!

          am I missing something in my timeline???

          • 2 votes
          #5.16 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:48 PM EDT

          Spanky: No reason that all the loans have to be backed. Oh and most need to go to cheaper colleges

          It has been mentioned on this forum that one of the purposes of a business is to make money. If you transfer student loans to the private sector, profit for the party lending the money becomes a big issue. The government helps to keep the playing field level. Without government backing to ensure fair practice, that leaves the student at the mercy of the money-makers.

          What should concern the student at that point is getting an education. But the stresses of paying for the education combined with the cuts in funding for education, facilities and tuition, make it more and more difficult.

          As for cheaper colleges, not only are there fewer of them, but their degrees are not as valuable in the market place.

          Are you really supporting the dumbing down of America? Beyond where we already are? Shameful.

          • 3 votes
          #5.17 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:50 PM EDT

          Sure fielden, but government should not be involved in college education funding. Period. You say leveling the playing field, I say picking winners and losers. Just look at admissions criteria at public colleges.

          Education is expensive. That is just a fact. The government in fact makes it more expensive - the tuition keeps going up cause the governments doles out the cash. Take the gov. out and prices would have to go down. There is way too much supply now. The colleges would be eating each other to get students.

          Just like real estate- Fannie and Freddie secured all those ridiculous loans, which made prices skyrocket.

          So you are saying UCLA, Berkley and UCSD are dumb colleges? All the state colleges and Universities are not as good as private?

          Huh. Sound a tad elitist.

          • 4 votes
          #5.18 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:10 PM EDT

          Please don't misinterpret me. I don't mean to sound elitist at all. Certainly the state universities are every bit as good as the private ones. In many cases, even better.

          The upper tier in terms of cost of education, are the private colleges. Like Yale, MIT, Stanford.

          UCLA, Berkeley are the middle tier. They are more affordable because they are state universities, subsidized in part by government.

          The lower tier would be the junior colleges and community colleges.

          • 2 votes
          #5.19 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:30 PM EDT

          Not to mention UNC, UNH, and Rutgers- all state colleges with extraordinary rankings.

          As to government loans- I went to school by paying my own way, ditto my husband, and we paid our son's tuition. People really can afford to go to college if they choose to do it- but it is a choice, not a right.

          Here is something the people on this board need to realize- liberals make up just 21% of the people in this country, according to Gallup. Most other polling organizations find the same thing. Your tinnily little minority of takers can not win any of these battles- which your god, Obama, knew during 2008- that's why he ran a walking, talking lie of a campaign as a pragmatic centrist.

          This is now the second time he had to cave to republicans- first the tax cuts, then this debt deal. He did not veto this bill, though it had no revenues. And, no, I don't think even he was dumb enough to believe we would default- he wanted to get to his birthday party- and all those guests with their $38,500 birthday checks. He did, after all, have to cancel a couple other fundraisers in the last couple weeks. This one had to go on.

          He's out there talking about more spending now- an "investment bank"- like the electorate is too dumb to understand he's talking about spending.

          He's done. Cooked. Obama shelved in 2012.

          • 5 votes
          #5.20 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:46 PM EDT

          I worked, got student loans and had grants and i paid back my loans after securing a decent job. I agree fielden, after a kid finish partying and figures out that he/she is in school to get ready for the work force, the additional stress of thinking about paying off loans is another distraction. I'm fortunate to have gone to college in the 70's and 80's when college was a lot cheaper.

          • 1 vote
          #5.21 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:07 PM EDT

          fieldon - of course there will always be uncertainty, I myself also graduated into a recession and I guarantee you that jobs came back faster in the fields of math and sciences than they did for the arts.

          • 1 vote
          #5.22 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 6:26 AM EDT
          Reply
          advertisement
          advertisement

          xxx

          • 3 votes
          Reply#6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:25 PM EDT

          Honestly; I'm just more confused than I was before...

          All I know is the stock market continues to slide... therefore; so does my retirement funds...

          BUT; it seems no matter what decision is made; THAT will continue ... which of course means... I'll have to continue working until I die...

          :::mocking the soup nazi::::: NO RETIREMENT FOR YOU!

          • 4 votes
          Reply#7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:38 PM EDT

          I don't understand what's so complex about this issue. When I max out my credit card, I tighten my belt and spend less until I've paid it and the interest payments down, I don't request a higher credit limit from the bank. That would be irresponsible, and I wouldn't want to leverage my future to satisfy my current spending binge.

          • 2 votes
          Reply#8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:40 PM EDT

          Wouldn't another logical option be to go out and get a second job to bring in more revenues to pay down your debt?

          • 8 votes
          #8.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:48 PM EDT

          Logically, Ted, it would but not when there aren't any jobs.

          • 2 votes
          #8.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:07 PM EDT

          Jody and Ted - apply it to a chapter 11.

          It's how it's done. Bankruptcy is almost always an expense issue.

          But perhaps either of you can tell us why obama signed off on a bill that has no revenue increases, signed tax decreases into law, and has said 50 times raising taxes now would be a bad idea.

          Is he lying, or just stupid?

          • 6 votes
          #8.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:15 PM EDT

          Tesla,

          The money has already been spent. The debt ceiling needed to be raised to borrow money to pay the bills that had come due.

          To use your analogy, not raising the debt limit would be like putting your monthy bills through a shredder, until the debt collector started calling and your credit rating was ruined.

          • 2 votes
          #8.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:41 PM EDT

          Spanky

          There ya go, miss information,

          Chapter 11 is for small business

          Chapter 7 is for personal/business, but they prefer you try a chapter 13 to try and repay your debt, but in order to file you have to take a counseling course, pay for it and pay in two parts, about $70, then their are the charges for the attorney and court, around 1800-3200 depends on your attoney.

          IF you don't have any money you just can't file.

          • 3 votes
          #8.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:30 PM EDT

          MJL-3 That neat, and appears to be from personal experience, but my point is what I said - a chapter 11 BK workout. A reorganization.

          Now, how many of those have you participated in? What's that, none? Uhu, I could tell.

          So why in the world would you feel compelled to comment?

          Astounding.

          • 3 votes
          #8.6 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:35 PM EDT

          Using the credit card analogy, let us say that you pay everything using the credit card. Hitting the limit means that something doesn't get paid. Rent, food, water, power, gas, medical bills, whatever. You have to pick and chose what you are going to pay that month and what you are not going to pay. And your credit rating drops when you become late on payments. And your interest rate goes up along with the finance charges.

          Two things you should do: start spending less. Go find a job that pays more. Pay down the balance.

          well, that's 3 things.

          • 1 vote
          #8.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:35 PM EDT

          Spanky-

          MJL-3 That neat, and appears to be from personal experience, but my point is what I said - a chapter 11 BK workout. A reorganization.

          Actually, I assist others get their paper work in order to file, help keep cost down, I do not Charge for this service. It is difficult and hard for people to understand especially while under that kind of stress.

          • 4 votes
          #8.8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:41 PM EDT

          Spanky: But perhaps either of you can tell us why obama signed off on a bill that has no revenue increases

          He did it because the country was more important than the principle. Imagine!

          Typical hostage situation... Does one hold to principle and sacrifice the hostages, or does one conceed one's positions for the safety of the hostages... It's not all about money. Or pride. It's the honorable thing.

          • 3 votes
          #8.9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:02 PM EDT

          Yeah, no power. Got it.

          So again, why bother even voting for him or a dem. The republicans rule, according to you all. Dems are just powerless.

          He Bluffed. His bluff got called. He lost cause he has no real will.

          You know, leading from behind. Just ask Ira - he's all over this thread on that very subject.

          • 5 votes
          #8.10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:12 PM EDT
          Reply
          advertisement
          advertisement

          Tesla Coil:

          When you bought your home…if you have one…did you take out a mortgage…debt.

          When you bought your car…did you finance it…debt.

          Those are capital investments.

          If you max out your charge card, you stop using it.

          That’s debt but incurred as an operating cost.

          The Federal government doesn’t distinguish between capital investments and operating costs. They’re all the same. So to say that the Federal government needs to cap spending or have a balanced budget either means that we will have extraordinarily high taxes so that it can invest in the things that it does invest in: health, military, social security, education, etc., or it means that we will invest in hardly anything.

          The comparison you give is NOT comparable.

          • 13 votes
          #9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:49 PM EDT

          It is amazing the amount of disinformation and just plain ignorance that appears in these threads. Ira, I thank you for your putting the situation in plain English that even someone with a GED could understand.

          • 4 votes
          #9.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 3:56 PM EDT

          It is also why a balance budget amendment makes no sense. If the same balanced budget logic is applied to an individual's personal finances, most people could never buy the home or the car.

          • 8 votes
          #9.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:10 PM EDT

          IL: The comparison you give is NOT comparable

          Then it becomes a problem of cash flow. You'd agree that interest rates are low, wouldn't you Ira. The interest cost on our debt is quite small percentage-wise. The interest paid per year is $170-200 billion. What if interest doubles off its all time lows though? Now you have a interest payment of $340 to $400 billion a year. And interest rates go up how? One way is by losing your credit rating. At least no one is talking about that happening.

          So where do you make up that $200-$400 billion every year? More taxes? Less spending on other things? Borrow it? Option 3 is the one we pick today, but that doesn't help, espeically if interest rates go high and stay high.

          We could also get more people employed and expand the tax base. But do you see that happening anytime soon?

          • 3 votes
          #9.3 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:12 PM EDT

          Guess it's time for them to distinguish, eh Ira.

          Might be time to let the house go to foreclosure, and sell the car and get a beater.

          • 6 votes
          #9.4 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:18 PM EDT

          JAS1, every jobs bill that the Democratic House and Senate brought to the floor was filibustered by the Republicans in the last Congress. But, I understand it would have meant that the government spend more cash, cause the private sector most certainly hasn't with the Bush tax cuts.

          • 3 votes
          #9.5 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:21 PM EDT

          Lucious: JAS1, every jobs bill that the Democratic House and Senate brought to the floor was filibustered by the Republicans.

          The GOP sure failed at that. ObamaCare, which I believe went into law, was supposed to generate 400,000 jobs "Almost immediately", and generate 4 million jobs total, at least according to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

          Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/25/pelosi_health_reform_will_create_400000_jobs_almost_immediately.html

          Where are those jobs Lucious?

          • 3 votes
          #9.7 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:34 PM EDT

          Ira: You mean like if we defaulted as you advocated.

          When did I advocate we default? Be specific.

          And the credit rating agencies are still thinking of downgrading the US credit rating. We didn't default, so why are they still thinking about it. Could it perhaps be the countries massive debt?

          JoAnna...tell us all who sets the interest rates in this country?

          The market.

          • 5 votes
          #9.8 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:39 PM EDT

          Lucious - it does make one wonder why the democrats couldn't have found the one or two votes to break the filibuster and pass the legislation. After all, didn't the obamacare bills and wall st reform bills come about this way?

          Perhaps what the left proposed really wouldn't create the jobs they said they would. Like the one that linked bringing jobs back from overseas for obtaining tax incentives.

          • 2 votes
          #9.9 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:40 PM EDT

          JoAnnaSmith1.

          JoAnna...tell us all who sets the interest rates in this country?

          The market.

          Last post.

          Did I hear a buzzer....no Joanna...that would be the Federal Reserve Bank.

          They establish the rates that banks borrow and there is something called the Fed Fund Rate.

          Now, why would the Federal Reserve raise rates...is inflation to high?

          Google it...I need to get get back to work.


          • 2 votes
          #9.10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:48 PM EDT

          Ira Lapin

          When you bought your home…if you have one…did you take out a mortgage…debt.

          When you bought your car…did you finance it…debt.

          Those are capital investments.

          Any competent business person knows the difference between investments and spending on extraneous stuff. But the Republicans either don't know the difference or pretend that they don't, which explains why they tanked the economy in 2008 and are blocking economic recovery now

          • 3 votes
          #9.11 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:55 PM EDT

          american-2051576

          Lucious - it does make one wonder why the democrats couldn't have found the one or two votes to break the filibuster and pass the legislation. After all, didn't the obamacare bills and wall st reform bills come about this way?

          They need to get 9 Republican votes to break a filibuster. How, pray tell, are the Democrats going to do that? Use "enhanced interrogation" techniques to persuade their Republican colleagues?

          Perhaps what the left proposed really wouldn't create the jobs they said they would. Like the one that linked bringing jobs back from overseas for obtaining tax incentives.

          The economy went from shedding 700,000 jobs per month when Obama took over to creating jobs every month. That's pretty solid evidence that what "the left" proposed really DID work, and that it would have worked better if the stimulus hadn't been paired down to get the handful of votes needed for passage from Republican senators and conservative Democrats.

          • 3 votes
          #9.12 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:02 PM EDT

          Jody, Iowa

          It is also why a balance budget amendment makes no sense. If the same balanced budget logic is applied to an individual's personal finances, most people could never buy the home or the car.

          Control, if that had been inplace when GW sent us over the cliff with the meltdown, we would have gone into a depression , GW wouldn't have been able to do anything, The GOP didn't think this through it is directly aimed at Obama because the GOP knows they have a cold day in hell chance of winning in 2012

          • 3 votes
          #9.13 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:43 PM EDT

          The interest rate important to this discussion is not the Fed Funds Rate. It is the interest rate on Treasuries. IIRC, this is set by the market on T Bills when they are auctioned by the Fed and also bought/sold in the secondary market.

          The reason that the credit rating companies are thinking of downgrading the US credit rating is not because the US has so much debt. It is because the US doesn't seem interested in repaying that debt.

            #9.14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:47 PM EDT

            Ira: JoAnna...tell us all who sets the interest rates in this country?

            JAS1: The market.

            Ira: Did I hear a buzzer....no Joanna...that would be the Federal Reserve Bank.

            Good gosh, Feisty has broken into your account Ira. No one is that stupid, except, well . . . .

            Okay Ira/Feisty lets play a game. The US Treasury decides to sell some of its debt. Interest on the T-bills is say 2% and the Treasury schedules the sale of $200 billion in bonds with that rate. The sale happens, but the Treasury only sells $75 billion of its bonds, its $125 billion short of what is needed.

            So what is the Treasury going to do? It realizes the market will only support $75 billion in sales at the 2% rate, or it can sweeten the deal and raise the interest rate to 2.5%, see if it can attract more buyers and see if it can sell more bonds.

            That's the market in action Ira/Feisty. The market sets the rate.

            Ira: Your argument is bogus...please stop.

            Learn what the difference is between the "debt" and the "deficit" before you make such judgements.

            And Ira, still waiting on this answer:

            Ira: You mean like if we defaulted as you advocated.

            When did I advocate we default? Be specific.

            • 3 votes
            #9.15 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:47 PM EDT

            Just read this..

            Joanna...you just doubled down on wrong..

            Do you actually know how a TBill auction works or did you just make up that hypothetical you posted?

            That's not even close to how an auction works.

            Again..Google it, JoAnna...I'm not 'splainin this one to you.

            Again..The Fed sets the borrowing rates. Period.

            Did you not say you would vote for ANY TP candidate?

            C'mon you know you posted that...

            Let's extrapolate.....TP...default doesn't matter...etc.

            Have a good night

            Talk tomorrow.

            • 2 votes
            #9.16 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:00 PM EDT

            There is an advantage to opening a thread after it is under way for awhile. I really get to see the ebb and flow of any sustained discussion.

            Ira and Joanna1 is a great example.

            Ira, do you also teach ? Your explanations as others have said are very heplful to one who is not an accountant, lawyer or an economist.

            thank you and keep posting.

            • 1 vote
            #9.17 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:03 PM EDT

            houston - lucious specified the LAST CONGRESS, and I replied in kind. Sorry to not specify the last congress specifically in my reply to lucious. My error in assuming that you read lucious's post I was referring to.

              #9.18 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 6:06 AM EDT
              Reply
              advertisement
              advertisement

              Trickle down is the biggest joke that was ever thought of and the American public swallowed it hole. Everybody loves a tax cut but still wants the same level of service. You get what you pay for, so when the roads and bridges crumble, just say " at least I got my tax cut".

              • 2 votes
              Reply#10 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:25 PM EDT

              Lucious - we practice trickle economics everyday and we have pretty much always practised it since our country was founded. What you apparently fail to realize is that what you are referring to is the concept of only expecting the wealthy to spend $$$ to bring up the economy, rather than the entire populace to also spend. That was the failure.

                #10.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:47 PM EDT

                American, I'm just repeating the theory as it was explained by Ronal Reagan and Art Laffer, as well as, the current Republican policy people.

                The well to do, do invest their funds in the market, but the corporations do not take those invested funds and reinvest in their operations and tax breaks, just increase net profit, which increases dividends and executive salaries, but no jobs are created.

                  #10.2 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:13 PM EDT
                  Reply

                  "Requires that the House of Representatives and the Senate vote on a joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution."

                  Doesn't require "passing" one though.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#11 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:35 PM EDT

                  That's right, thank God!

                  • 2 votes
                  #11.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:50 PM EDT
                  Reply

                  Sure glad those tea party members kept the pres from getting 4 trillion in debt reduction. Myopic morons.

                  • 2 votes
                  Reply#12 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:49 PM EDT

                  The sad fact is that we are in the midst of a failed presidency. You know it, and I know it, the Republicans in Congress certainly know it -- and so do the markets. The man we elected 44th president of the United States, the man with a grand vision, the progressive who was going to roll back eight years of reaction, is not running the executive branch at the moment. Jimmy Carter is in the Oval Office.

                  The parallels are so strong that I don't think comparing the failing presidency of Barack Obama to the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter is a stretch. His refusal to use the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to prevent calamity -- its language clearly prohibits playing games with the national debt -- reeks not of a constitutional lawyer's caution but of a weak president's timidity. Obama isn't embracing the plain language of the Constitution not because he is thinking of the nation, but because he doesn't want to risk an impeachment battle.

                  • 1 vote
                  Reply#13 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 4:54 PM EDT

                  Just when I stopped simmering over this whole debacle, I get an answer from my congressman about the email I sent....thanking me for sharing his concerns about our debt and raising the debt ceiling. He assured me that he was working hard on the Cut, Cap and Balance bill which he co-sponsored and which I wanted..........it's okay with me it they don't bother answering, but, to make it so obvious that he (or anyone in his office) never bothered to read my email much less address my issues is maddening. Do they just assume that every email from their constituents agrees with their platform? Once again, I have to say....aaaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  • 4 votes
                  Reply#14 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:05 PM EDT

                  Here is an interesting analysis of what we can expect from the Republican/TP Inc. desires:

                  http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/boehner_budget_would_cut_public_investments_to_lowest_level_in_over_50_year/

                    Reply#16 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:28 PM EDT

                    The Tea Party ignores reality because an 3rd century abicus would prove they are all idiots.  Needed $4 trillion in deficit reduction as proposed by Obama's balanced approach $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in taxes.  $4 trillion was Obama's goal plain and simple.  By the time the tea party completed their temper tantrum striking the glass window of our economic recovery with a bat, we ended up with their version of success at $2 trillion.  Idiots left $2 trillion in real debt reduction on the table because they want to protect their friends the rich.  By the way, I dont need the tea party's help on taxes I was rich at 38% and 30% did not change my life one bit.  The down fall of America will change my life.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#17 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:53 PM EDT

                    Spineless - You speak as though you were not part of the failed - welfare ridden - free cheese group. If you remember when the in-experienced half white dude was elected, he ran up the deficit to record numbers. An idiot is an idiot regardless of where he is or what his title is. And being rich isn't always about money.

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:32 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    advertisement
                    advertisement

                    The connies are going to find this all *hee hee* funny until they figure out whose ox gets gored.

                    Then the laughter stops.

                    Like I told em when my connie coworkers were hopping up and down and high fiving when we bombed Iraq. I told them:

                    "This is all going to be really funny until the body bags start coming home and gasoline is still expensive, then it won't be quite as fun."

                    Either way you look at this all of America, connie and Liberal, still loses.

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#18 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 5:55 PM EDT

                    SO extinct - What exactly would you have done??? Nothing like the rest of your spineless, worthless kind??

                      #18.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:55 PM EDT
                      Reply

                      Sueb1, I received a two page letter in the mail after I called my congresswoman. It was very detailed and did refer to the message I left with her aid.

                      Love the letter because it showed what committees she is on. She is on Appropriation, Budget and is the senior Democratic whip.

                      Betty MCollum 4th District MN

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#19 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:11 PM EDT

                      Wow. Whodathunkit?

                      Reps gloating, Libs gloating, both sides lost :) and lost big.

                      You see (demagoguing to ensue...) it's like this...

                      at which point is something so broken that it's better to re-break it (or break it further) and set it then to continue to put it in a cast and pray that it'll right itself?

                      History is full of extremes, moderation is the aborration throughout mankinds history. Sorry to break it to you all.

                      So we have a group that was set, for decades, on extreme spending and used a base-line 6% gdp growth to justify it. 6% isn't a real number, it was a projection, and i can count on one hand the amount of times we hit that mark. (Psst. That's both political parties, just on different priorities)

                      now, with this extremity full acknowledged, we can move into the reaction. Or, more importantly, the Reactionaries who, throughout history, have always risen in response to perceived radicalization of idea/culture/whatever. Now if we can put an economic forecast of 6%, and thus the resulting spending, as a 'radical' idea of change (is it possible to quantify an economic theory? I just did...) then the advent of the reactionary party wasn't exactly unforeseen.

                      You can't really 'beat' a reactionary party, especially if you try to avoid them. What you do is marginalize them to an extent that, over-time, they lose power.

                      Simply put, Obama isn't stupid in negotiating and even granting some concessions to the reactionary party. if he has a political science advisor worth his salt (and let us hope he does), he's more concerned with marginalizing them. His goal isn't to beat them, it's to make their ideaology out-dated. The more focus they can put on their ideaology, the more support they will get from the general populace. By focusing things on money and debt, he's not so much encouraging their growth as he is pushing people out of his own camp and into theirs.

                      So watch for a constant dialogue on debt and deficit in the coming months, even aside from the debt-ceiling. Congress, with those rampant tea-party folks, are going to continue to make that a central focus. Obama, if he's smart, will continue to try to marginalize the issue.

                      This isn't about common people, it's about the tools to power. Voting by ideals are for the poor or the unsound of mind. So, naturally, that's how they'll continue to advance their agenda.

                      If more people voted by realities, and less by ideals, the world would be a much different place.

                      Then again, I am a huge fan of Henry Kissinger, Otto von Bismarck, and the basic premise of RealPolitik.

                      Someone said it...watch not what they say, but what they do.

                      PS- Best Quotes Ever for you guys ;

                      "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

                      "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America. "

                      Both from Otto von Bismarck.

                      Enjoy!

                      • 3 votes
                      Reply#20 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:16 PM EDT

                      I hope you're right,but I doubted.The President has reneged on just about everything he promised.Gonna,or going to, simply means just that.Leaders are born leaders,made leaders are actually followers.

                        #20.1 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 7:14 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        advertisement
                        advertisement

                        What the President,and and a hand full of democrats like Senator Harry Reid has done is definitely not,I mean not what the majority of the people wanted......After all, Mitch McConnell's comment about President Obama, unfortunately he is right.The President up this point has very much proven himself to be a follower rather than a LEADER like former President Ronald Reagan......Democrats who voted for the BILL should not be rellected on there next term.........This is a sad day for American people who's sacrifice for this country.What did they get in return?????Shallow words of appeasement.Doesn't say much for our flag,and freedom.

                          Reply#21 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 6:48 PM EDT

                          Now the on-slaught begins on attacking the vets and military pay and benefits. How about lets take away a few bennies and pay for Congress and their staff as a higher priority. As long as the democrats are in charge of the majority of the White House and the Senate there will be signficant cuts in military/defense. Instead of getting rid of big government programs that are duplicated, wasteful and meaningless, they would rather go after the veterans, military and seniors. They want more money to spend on putting more far left losers in professor slots in the ivy league universities so they can continue to brainwash more students.

                          Now when some foreign or domestic terrorist is about to kick their rear ends, they want the military to go and put their live on the line to protect their sorry butt. These are the sorry worthless excuse for a human being we have roaming the streets in America.

                            Reply#22 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 8:27 PM EDT

                            If your not happy with the way the TEA party held America hostage, then you better Vote Out The (E) incumbent TEA party members and the GOP-ers who spear headed this lopsided win. President obvama could not look farther down the road or afford crashing the economy with a veto. HGis view was for everyone and the fragile economy being held hostage. If your not happy with the way this played out, you better vote this coming November 2012!

                              Reply#23 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 9:51 PM EDT

                              Here's Keith Olbermann take on the outrage of the "Debt Debacle":

                              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/02/olbermann-debt-ceiling-special-comment-protests-obama_n_915957.html

                              I miss him since I don't always have access to cable and Comcast requires payment for "Current TV"!

                              Everyone in America realizes that The TEA party led GOP held America hostage and the Democrats and president made this agreement to keep the country from calamity and a world depression. If your not happy with the way the TEA party held America hostage, then you better

                              Vote

                              Out

                              The

                              (E) incumbent TEA party members and the GOP-ers who spear headed this lopsided win. President Obama could not look farther down the road or afford crashing the economy with a veto. His view was for everyone and the fragile economy being held hostage. If your not happy with the way this played out, you better vote this coming November 2012!

                                Reply#24 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 10:25 PM EDT

                                feisty et al - No matter how you slice it, we the American people lost in this deal. The Tea Party managed to shield big business and the wealthy from taxation. Education via Pell Grants took a big hit. There isn't any resolution to which agencies will be cut. As I see it, the Tea Party threw such a tantrum and held the economy of the nation and probably the world that the Democrats and Obama caved, and probably had to. In retrospect, I wish the bill hadn't passed and Obama had invoked the 14th amendment. The Special Committee hasn't a chance of making progress with the guarantee that 50% of it will not allow any tax increases and Medicare and Social Security are on the chopping block. We have allowed this dysfunctional Congress to pass crisis legislation. I am sick and tired of Congress getting its adrealine high from creating crises to get anything done and then it's usually bad legislaton. The only way the people are going to be represented is to bombard our legislators and the President with phone calls, e-mails and letters until they get the picture that we will not tolerate such outrageous mismanagement of our country's business.

                                  Reply#25 - Tue Aug 2, 2011 11:43 PM EDT

                                  Summertime, SS is not going to be part of any spending cuts now or at the end of the year. It is off the table. that is what I have heard and I think I read in the bill on the other thread. Medicare might be changed like having it begin at 66 or 67. But that would be something for the "commisiion" to do. Either way, I think the voters will be so upset by then that they would not dare because we are coming into a election year. It might make them look at raisng revenue by closing tax loopholes etc.but we all have to wait and see. We can be imformed and not buy into the platitudes or one line slogans that are already beginning with Bachmann, teaparty folks etc.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #25.1 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:28 AM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  advertisement
                                  advertisement

                                  MSNBC is "helping" us understand the issue in this article. As soon as I read "certain amounts of additional spending for “program integrity” initiatives", my BS alarm went off.

                                    Reply#26 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:46 AM EDT
                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.