Do we really need to raise the debt ceiling?

[TSR]

I just hope everyone watches the debates on C-Span and votes accordingly. I am still hoping one day in the future we will have an independent candidate running-according to recent polls, 40% of the voters are now independent.

 

[Larrry]

40% of the voters are now independent.

Of those forty I wonder if they classify themselves as liberal, conservatives or just plain cowards

 

[Anonymous]

I just hope everyone watches the debates on C-Span and votes accordingly. I am still hoping one day in the future we will have an independent candidate running-according to recent polls, 40% of the voters are now independent.

Nixons "Silent Majority"......

Silent majority fed up with Washington
AMERICAN POLITICS


July 23, 2011|By Lou Zickar


The brilliant but disgraced President Richard Nixon once gave a speech in which he spoke of the "silent majority" in American politics.

These were the people, he observed, who didn't wave signs or march in the streets. Rather, they were the people who quietly went about their lives, going to work, raising their families and giving back to their communities.

Nixon gave this speech in 1969 at the height of the Vietnam War. But more than four decades later, his basic observation still rings true. For if there was ever a time that a silent majority existed in American politics, it is today. The current debate over raising the debt limit is a good example.


The debate is dominated by the political extremes. Those on the far right would rather have the federal government default on its financial obligations than give ground on what is anathema to most conservatives: raising taxes. Those on the far left would rather risk default than give ground on what is anathema to most liberals: reducing entitlements.

Caught between these two extremes are those Americans who want their leaders to set aside ideology and do what's best for the country. This is America's silent majority. These are the Americans who watch ESPN and HGTV at night instead of MSNBC and Fox. They vote in most elections, although they've been known to miss a primary or two. If they contribute to a campaign, it's usually to a local candidate or a friend who's running for the school board.

They supported the Democrats in 2008 and the Republicans in 2010. They're sympathetic to the tea party, but only to a point. More than anything, what turns them off about politics is the pettiness and partisanship coming out of Washington.

They voted for Obama because he seemed like a different kind of leader, and then opposed him two years later because he ended up being not that different at all.

They're willing to give him another shot next year, because they like him. But they're keeping their eyes open for other possible candidates, such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, as well.

 

[loomixguy]

I don't see the "silent majority" being willing to give your hero another shot in 2012. YOU, for sure, will don the kneepads, but I don't see what this hack is predicting, Methuselah.

 

[hypocritexposer]

The debate is dominated by the political extremes. Those on the far right would rather have the federal government default on its financial obligations than give ground on what is anathema to most conservatives: raising taxes. Those on the far left would rather risk default than give ground on what is anathema to most liberals: reducing entitlements.

entitlements have not decreased since Barry has become President, yet deficits have tripled......

A good start would be to cut the spending back to 2007 levels, where entitlements were the same as they are today, but the deficits were 1/3 the size.

Or go back a couple more years and keep entitlements the same and cut the deficits by 4/5.

Less people were on food stamps then, than now.

 

[Tex]

Sorry Tex I don't buy what you are selling about not defending the Dems as you were the one that said

Many of these bills were made in REPUBLICAN administrations all too ready to be passed down to the next politician instead of balancing the budget then.

You forgot to mention the trillions the DEMOCRATS have tacked onto the debt. The Dems have set a record of the largest deficit spending in US history and you claimed the Republicans are responisble for the bills. FACTS are if the Dems had not refused to rein in Fanny and Freddy when the Republicans under Bush asked, the TARP bill that Bush signed after the DEMCRATS passed through the Senate and House would not have been tacked onto the debt under Bush.

Tax breaks we couldn't afford along with two wars has the worst of the politicians threatening the SS system instead of raising those taxes and taking the heat for the spending the House has approved

.
Republicans tax breaks didn't cause the problem DEMOCRAT SPENDING money on failed stimulus programs, extended unemployment, welfare, and Obamacare is the problem and their unwillingness to deal with the growing problem worsened by their out of control spending has cost them one election and hopefully will cost them the next.

Oh let's go back to your "passed down to the next politician instead of balancing the budget then" comment. How do you balance a budget when you DON"T HAVE ONE. Or did you forget it was the Dems that were responsible for writing/balancing the budget for the last 2 years of the Bush years and under Obama. If anyone was passing the job of balancing a budget down it sure wasn't the Republicans like you would have us believe by your comment.

You say you don't defend the Dems but when I pointed out it was their policies that are holding back job creation and brought articles and poll results to prove it you poo poo the results as the Chamber has no credibility with you.

When can I expect to see you claiming the Dems are responsible for the debt due to the fact they are protecting their campaign donors who are now working for the Obama Administration or have healthy contracts with his government, like you opennly blame the Republicans?

Okay, Tam, just argue with yourself then. You are trying to make this into a democratic vs. republican scandal when the scandal developed during the Bush administration and before that, its roots were in legislation pushed by Phil Gramm and signed by Bill Clinton.

Both of these forces lead into the current recession and it is going to take a bit of time to de leverage out of them.

I expect more from republicans just like I expect more from my kids. They (republicans) have been a disappointment.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

I'd add one thing- that if we default on our bills, the first bills that go unpaid are the salaries of Congress and their staffs along with the cost of all their travel and other perks- including all the retirement payments of the ex-Congressmen...
If they had to work out of their own pockets for awhile they might get something done...

I've always had great respect for Sen Alan Simpson- and the way his party has shunned all the work he has done on this issue is shameful....

Gazette opinion: Congress must avert U.S. credit crisis
Billings Gazette
Posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:00 am


Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles have asked Americans to pray for six U.S. senators: Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mark Warner, D-W.Va.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

"The Gang of Six has laid out a comprehensive plan with immediate savings and a process to achieve savings in both defense and non-defense spending, enact cost-saving health reforms, ensure 75-year Social Security solvency, fundamentally reform the United States tax code, and reduce spending everywhere in the budget," Simpson and Bowles, co-chairs of the White House deficit reduction commission, said in a statement last week, continuing:

"In doing so, the Gang of Six has put forward a plan for America's future that accepts the difficult truths about the size and scope of the problem, addresses the drivers of our expansive future cost growth, and approaches and represents the broad-based reform we are going to have to adopt to avoid a crisis."

The impending crisis is that House Republicans refuse to raise the federal borrowing limit to finance the spending Congress previously authorized. House members, including Denny Rehberg of Montana, are holding the nation's credit rating hostage in an ideological battle over future spending.

Deal with debt limit first

Let's deal with the debt limit first, now, before Aug. 1.

Don't let Standard & Poor's make good on its threat to downgrade America's credit rating. Don't throw Wall Street into turmoil. Don't risk another recession in a world economy that runs on the strength of the U.S. dollar.

We call upon members of Montana's delegation to support legislation this week to resolve the debt crisis for more than a year. Once that legislation has passed, we call upon members of Montana's delegation to support Congress staying in session until a workable deficit reduction agreement is passed and sent to President Obama — even if that means missing the traditional month-long August break.

An eloquent presidential quote speaks to the dangerous D.C. standoff:

"Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar."

President Ronald Reagan said that during his weekly radio address on Sept. 26, 1987.

Back then, Reagan reluctantly signed a reauthorization of the Gramm-Rudman automatic deficit reduction law because it was attached to urgently needed legislation to increase government borrowing authority. He warned that the deficit-reduction law eventually would require raising taxes, slashing defense spending or both. That law required a $22 billion reduction in the deficit in fiscal 1988, but not a balanced budget. The deficit for fiscal 1988 was projected to be $144 billion. That 24-year-old law raised the U.S. borrowing limit to $2.8 trillion.

History repeats

The numbers are much bigger now. But the dilemma is similar: The U.S. must be able to borrow to meet the obligations it has incurred to Americans and to U.S. creditors. Social Security recipients, military veterans, federal workers and others are worried they won't receive their August checks.

Congress must avert disaster. Americans who pray for wise leadership may consider praying that today's leaders see what Reagan saw: the urgency of preventing a national credit crisis.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_0d45fc21-361a-5143-b04f-efd237eb36e1.html#ixzz1TLFEbqgM

 

[hypocritexposer]

OT, in one of the CNN polls that you have posted lately, there was a question on the "gang of 6's" plan, did you read the polls in their entirety?

 

[TSR]

40% of the voters are now independent.

Of those forty I wonder if they classify themselves as liberal, conservatives or just plain cowards

Do you listen to C-Span much?? I think those 40%, now probably even a higher percentage, classify themselves as intelligent to some degree, open minded, and objective.

 

[Larrry]

40% of the voters are now independent.

Of those forty I wonder if they classify themselves as liberal, conservatives or just plain cowards

Do you listen to C-Span much?? I think those 40%, now probably even a higher percentage, classify themselves as intelligent to some degree, open minded, and objective.

So you "think" they do. I would rather hear what they have to say about what they classify themselves

 

[TSR]

Of those forty I wonder if they classify themselves as liberal, conservatives or just plain cowards

Do you listen to C-Span much?? I think those 40%, now probably even a higher percentage, classify themselves as intelligent to some degree, open minded, and objective.

So you "think" they do. I would rather hear what they have to say about what they classify themselves

You as well as myself will, come election day. It may elevate our predictions or deflate them, but either way the people will have spoken. I might add, all posts here reflect what one "thinks" to greater or lesser degree. That is what makes this site fun to visit.

 

[Tex]

I'd add one thing- that if we default on our bills, the first bills that go unpaid are the salaries of Congress and their staffs along with the cost of all their travel and other perks- including all the retirement payments of the ex-Congressmen...
If they had to work out of their own pockets for awhile they might get something done...

I've always had great respect for Sen Alan Simpson- and the way his party has shunned all the work he has done on this issue is shameful....

Gazette opinion: Congress must avert U.S. credit crisis
Billings Gazette
Posted: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:00 am


Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles have asked Americans to pray for six U.S. senators: Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mark Warner, D-W.Va.; and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

"The Gang of Six has laid out a comprehensive plan with immediate savings and a process to achieve savings in both defense and non-defense spending, enact cost-saving health reforms, ensure 75-year Social Security solvency, fundamentally reform the United States tax code, and reduce spending everywhere in the budget," Simpson and Bowles, co-chairs of the White House deficit reduction commission, said in a statement last week, continuing:

"In doing so, the Gang of Six has put forward a plan for America's future that accepts the difficult truths about the size and scope of the problem, addresses the drivers of our expansive future cost growth, and approaches and represents the broad-based reform we are going to have to adopt to avoid a crisis."

The impending crisis is that House Republicans refuse to raise the federal borrowing limit to finance the spending Congress previously authorized. House members, including Denny Rehberg of Montana, are holding the nation's credit rating hostage in an ideological battle over future spending.

Deal with debt limit first

Let's deal with the debt limit first, now, before Aug. 1.

Don't let Standard & Poor's make good on its threat to downgrade America's credit rating. Don't throw Wall Street into turmoil. Don't risk another recession in a world economy that runs on the strength of the U.S. dollar.

We call upon members of Montana's delegation to support legislation this week to resolve the debt crisis for more than a year. Once that legislation has passed, we call upon members of Montana's delegation to support Congress staying in session until a workable deficit reduction agreement is passed and sent to President Obama — even if that means missing the traditional month-long August break.

An eloquent presidential quote speaks to the dangerous D.C. standoff:

"Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar."

President Ronald Reagan said that during his weekly radio address on Sept. 26, 1987.

Back then, Reagan reluctantly signed a reauthorization of the Gramm-Rudman automatic deficit reduction law because it was attached to urgently needed legislation to increase government borrowing authority. He warned that the deficit-reduction law eventually would require raising taxes, slashing defense spending or both. That law required a $22 billion reduction in the deficit in fiscal 1988, but not a balanced budget. The deficit for fiscal 1988 was projected to be $144 billion. That 24-year-old law raised the U.S. borrowing limit to $2.8 trillion.

History repeats

The numbers are much bigger now. But the dilemma is similar: The U.S. must be able to borrow to meet the obligations it has incurred to Americans and to U.S. creditors. Social Security recipients, military veterans, federal workers and others are worried they won't receive their August checks.

Congress must avert disaster. Americans who pray for wise leadership may consider praying that today's leaders see what Reagan saw: the urgency of preventing a national credit crisis.



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/editorial/gazette-opinion/article_0d45fc21-361a-5143-b04f-efd237eb36e1.html#ixzz1TLFEbqgM

I have a few problems with Erskine Bowles.

I think there needs to be a priority list on cuts that need to be worked out with both parties.

Any corporate welfare like the payment of agriculture subsidies to anyone making over 250 K should be cut immediately. The Congress owes the public all the money that was spent on these people for past years.

Note I said anyone making over 250K which means other income outside of farming. If a family gets millions off of their land in oil revenue, there is no way they should get a subsidy for corn too. There should also be a 250K cap on amounts given under the program. It has been nothing less than unnecessary govt. spending which could have gone to pay down the federal debt but was squandered. Now, when we have a time in our economy where we have to de-leverage the housing and financial bubbles, that money is long gone. Sure, it bought a few votes, but it was a total waste.

ALL programs should be reviewed in this manner.

The problem I had with Erskine Bowles is that they didn't even consider raising the SS tax on the real amount that people make and continued to exempt huge sums at the request of some of the people who engineered the financial meltdown.

SS taxes should be on ALL income, not just earnings with the first 160k of interest or investment income exempt but the rest taxed. Then we need to means test at the 160K level for benefit payout.

This would instantly fix SS and make the super rich more careful about categorizing their tax as just "income tax" while the rest of us pay our SS tax on just about all our income because it comes as earnings instead of investment.

Over investment helped leverage and cause the financial bubble and has been the root cause of much of the over leveraging in the economy and the financialization of our industries from main street to Wall Street where the rich play their games that mess up the real economy.

Not making everyone pay SS tax rate on all their income while they use SS as a borrowing pool is a tax fraud on the people paying SS by the super rich.

The problem is that we don't have enough people talking about what really needs to be done and instead we have politicians who are still pandering to the rich and the spin they buy from their think tanks.

Tex

 

[Mike]

George Soros too?

You know he is one of the largest grain dealers in the world.

 

[Tex]

George Soros too?

You know he is one of the largest grain dealers in the world.

Mike, I have no affinity for George Soros above the principles I outlined. I don't think govt. programs to keep farmers alive during years of low prices due to overproduction should be farmed by the rich no matter who they are or if they agree or disagree with me on issues. These programs should not be used by the rich to enrich themselves and the politicians who voted to keep them in the program are probably taking campaign donations from them and misusing the public purse to further enrich the rich instead of providing a safety net for real farmers.

All of it should be means tested.

I worked on a farm that probably received these farm subsidies but they were getting millions in oil and gas revenue. It was incredible to me that Congress could be so irresponsible to put us in the place we are in today.

It is an accumulation of years of plundering the public's purse.

Tex