News Should Obama invoke the 14th Amendment and bypass Congress?

[mheslep]

Reducing the US military would require a global paradigm shift - friendly nations (European mostly) would need to have larger standing armies. Also, there would have to be no potential threat from another country. Call is fear mongering all you want - but NK, Iran and potentially China are all civilized threats that could potentially harm the US or it's allies. The military deterance is the only thing, imo, stopping NK and Iran especially.

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

 

[turbo]

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

And let's not pretend that the US Defense Budget is anywhere as "small" as stated. There is a whole bunch of black (off budget) expenses that we will never ever know about until they are declassified (long after the perpetrators are dead, IMO) and America's finances are being dragged down by a lot of this crap.

We are paying for black ops, black bases, and a whole lot of other stuff (including surveillance, analysis, and data-mining, etc) that will never show up on any budget.

 

[WhoWee]

If Congress fails to act, should Obama follow the advice of Bill Clinton?

To get us back on track Ivan - yes and absolutely! While Ex-President Clinton survived his perjury-based Impeachment - President Obama might win in the Senate - only to lose in 2012? On that basis - I must support him.

 

[WhoWee]

And let's not pretend that the US Defense Budget is anywhere as "small" as stated. There is a whole bunch of black (off budget) expenses that we will never ever know about until they are declassified (long after the perpetrators are dead, IMO) and America's finances are being dragged down by a lot of this crap.

We are paying for black ops, black bases, and a whole lot of other stuff (including surveillance, analysis, and data-mining, etc) that will never show up on any budget.

There's plenty of "private contracts" that can be traced - no need to sound conspiratorial?

 

[turbo]

There's plenty of "private contracts" that can be traced - no need to sound conspiratorial?

There are a lot of expenses that cannot be traced because they are off-budget and will remain so. Can you tell me how much money we will have to to spend to fund the NSA this year? No? I didn't think so.

 

[talk2glenn]

I asked a friend who is a retired Navy fast attack sub officer (from the Reagan era) why on Earth do we still need 58 nuclear submarines, which BTW are retired well before there designed life to keep the current production line rolling. He said we should have 100. I declined to offer to pay my share for them.

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

Note that these force requirement studies are based on something called available mission days. The Navy has a very accurate assumption regarding the number of mission days one sub can provide, given the available crews. It then has an expectation regarding the number of mission days the President will demand, under the strategic force structure required by Congress. It is far more complicated - and precise - than the laymans "one sub should be enough if I'm only bombing one person at a time" perspective. There is tremendous pass through time. To keep consistent coverage of a given operation, you need maybe 3 subs and 5 crews, for example, depending on mission.

If you want to reduce the number of subs below 55, you have to reduce the number of mission days demanded. What mission that the Navy conducts currently ought to be scrapped? Fleet security? Operations support? Patrol of Chinese and Russian waters? I wouldn't know; I assume all the low-hanging fruit has already been grabbed.

 

[WhoWee]

There are a lot of expenses that cannot be traced because they are off-budget and will remain so. Can you tell me how much money we will have to to spend to fund the NSA this year? No? I didn't think so.

Turbo, I'm trying to agree with you about war spending that goes byond direct troop expenses. As for the NSA - fregardless of location - from Maine to Florida, Alaska, to Hawaii, and California - I sleep soundly at night.

 

[WhoWee]

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

I'd like to hear from the experts - is it reasonable and/or feasible (economically) to turn any of these assets into powerplants?

 

[mheslep]

According to the JCS, optimal force structure given the naval strategic objective is 55 fast attack subs. The Navy currently has 53, with 3 under construction and 20 planned. This is down from a 76-sub requirement in 1999.

To my knowledge, a total of 11 LA-class attack boats have been retired short of their 30-year lifespans. The reason was the cost of mandatory maintenance and refueling, not production line maintenance. This maintenance must be conducted about 20 years after launch.

Ok, maintain them. Why retire them?

Note that these force requirement studies are based on something called available mission days... If you want to reduce the number of subs below 55, you have to reduce the number of mission days demanded. What mission that the Navy conducts currently ought to be scrapped? Fleet security? Operations support? Patrol of Chinese and Russian waters? I wouldn't know; I assume all the low-hanging fruit has already been grabbed.

I accept the multiplier, whatever it is. I want to know what mission load is required to defend this country, not every country, and what part of it must be done by subs, and not, say, great listening airborne platforms like the P3 Orion or the other 2-300 surface ships. Also why not throw in some cheap diesels especially for short range patrols? My Navy sub jockey friend points out that while hovering the German diesels are quieter than US nukes. The Fukishima accident is a good reminder as to why: nukes can never turn off those reactor pumps.

 

[mege]

Let's assume everything you is say here is true (and I don't necessarily). That does not force the conclusion that the One True US Defense Budget to provide for all this security is ~$700B/year, or anything like it.

My greater point is - there's a lot more to it than just 'wasted steel' floating in the oceans.

It's also important to note that our military spending is significantly lower than it was during the peak of the Cold War. So, the US in the last 25 years has already increased spending on non-military projects by replacement.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=14&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2006&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no - we're around 4-6% of GDP in defense spending the last 2 decades (Basically since Desert Storm), nowhere near the 10% that the US spent in the 50s and 60s. Where did that difference in budget go if the government was pulling in about the same amount of money by % of gdp? (~18-22%). It's easy to point at $600B in Defense allocations for the military conflicts and drop your jaw, but it needs to be put in perspective - our domestic spending (presumably fueled by entitlement programs) has skyrocketed by larger proportions in a shorter amount of time.

 

[mege]

To get us back on track Ivan - yes and absolutely! While Ex-President Clinton survived his perjury-based Impeachment - President Obama might win in the Senate - only to lose in 2012? On that basis - I must support him.

If the entire problem is perception of the US's fiscal irresponsibility, would the President being dictitorial about the debt ceiling actually be prudent? I think that might be the biggest check anyone man has ever written if he does so.

 

[WhoWee]

If the entire problem is perception of the US's fiscal irresponsibility, would the President being dictitorial about the debt ceiling actually be prudent? I think that might be the biggest check anyone man has ever written if he does so.

The Presidenial arrogance could lead to Impeachment - IMO?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwhfhncPfM&feature=related

 

[talk2glenn]

I'd like to hear from the experts - is it reasonable and/or feasible (economically) to turn any of these assets into powerplants?

The output is too low for commercial energy production (they are designed to be frugal and produce their juice over sustained periods without refueling), and the designs themselves are protected by law. The reactors have to be dismantled and sensitive technology destroyed as part of submarine recycling. Assuming it was possible, the cost of converting them would be greater than the fifty-year value of their power output, give or take, and by the time they are retired, they are at the limits of their rated operational lifespan.

Ok, maintain them. Why retire them?

Because the cost of the mandatory 20-year maintenance is greater than the cost of retirement. These 11 ships were retired in the mid- to late-1990's, when Naval budgets were at their minima. They couldn't afford to keep them operational.

I want to know what mission load is required to defend this country, not every country, and what part of it must be done by subs, and not, say, great listening airborne platforms like the P3 Orion or the other 2-300 surface ships. Also why not throw in some cheap diesels especially for short range patrols?

You tell me. Since the end of the Cold War, the low-lieing fruit has been picked; what remains is the bare minimum necessary to meet the ongoing strategic requirements of the United States, and maintain a war-fighting capability should the worst happen. Clearly, we overdid it with the cuts in the '90s. We can afford to lose some personnel as the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawn down, but very little in terms of capability (number of task forces and brigades, and big ticket items like aircraft and boats).

Gates is already looking for the personnel savings - mostly by eliminating supporting contract roles, but they will probably have to get to the enlisted men eventually - but we are talking small potatoes in the grand scheme. Defense is the wrong tree, frankly. There's this pervasive myth that the DOD is lavishly overfunded and easily picked clean, but that's frankly BS. They have gotten very good at justifying standing force levels since the draw-down from Cold War footing; the extraneous stuff is long gone. To cut more, you have to make hard choices about what specific capabilities you are willing to give up.

The $700B defense budget is mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, in any case. Entitlements, entitlements, entitlements.

 

[mege]

The Presidenial arrogance could lead to Impeachment - IMO?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwhfhncPfM&feature=related

(can't watch the video at work, sorry if it was relevant to what I'm about to say)

While I'd love nothing more than to see President Obama removed from office, I don't think he will do this on his own. He's too politically minded. If he was more pragmatic, and didn't care what his donors thought - he'd raise the debt ceiling in a heartbeat. Does someone smell a lack of leadership in this situation?

The legality aside for reasons of impeachment (the President has already said he's being advised by his legal team to NOT maverick the debt ceiling increase), if the President did mandate the debt ceiling to be increased - would that be a better or worse situation than inaction in the eyes of the ratings agencies?

Who elected S&P anyhow? ;)

 

[mheslep]

Since the end of the Cold War, the low-lieing fruit has been picked; what remains is the bare minimum necessary to meet the ongoing strategic requirements of the United States, and maintain a war-fighting capability should the worst happen.

Maybe, but I see no evidence here that this is the case, just an assertion.

The $700B defense budget is mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, in any case. Entitlements, entitlements, entitlements.

I agree.

 

[mheslep]

My greater point is - there's a lot more to it than just 'wasted steel' floating in the oceans.

It's also important to note that our military spending is significantly lower than it was during the peak of the Cold War.

No, in real dollars the defense budget has doubled since the peak of the Reagan cold war spending, and more than doubled since the ~1996 low.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...tack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

Yes I know the above is in constant dollars and not %GDP. But I see a rationale for using %GDP on defense spending only for analyzing how much it is possible to *afford*, and never what it is *required* to be spent to meet security needs.

It's easy to point at $600B in Defense allocations for the military conflicts and drop your jaw, but it needs to be put in perspective - our domestic spending (presumably fueled by entitlement programs) has skyrocketed by larger proportions in a shorter amount of time.

Why so? The two are unrelated and domestic spending should give no perspective to defense spending at all. The nations security needs are what they are, regardless of economic conditions in the country and regardless of how individuals spend their money and regardless of how the government via the people chooses to spend the rest of its money.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I agree - the correlation between GDP and the required defense spending should be weak. If the economy booms, you don't suddenly need a bigger defense. (Of course, payrolls go up in this case, so the correlation won't be zero)

 

[BobG]

Without reading through the pages of posts about nuclear attack submarines ...

... is the White House considering some other, even more drastic, option than the 14th Amendment?

 

[WhoWee]

Without reading through the pages of posts about nuclear attack submarines ...

... is the White House considering some other, even more drastic, option than the 14th Amendment?

The Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer tag team is firing everything in their arsenals. I find it ironic they have so much time to make speeches - considering all of the "governing" they claim to be doing.


Yesterday Nancy Pelosi commented to reporters after her planned remarks that House Republicans were trying to change life as we know it on the planet - or something to that effect?

 

[mege]

I agree - the correlation between GDP and the required defense spending should be weak. If the economy booms, you don't suddenly need a bigger defense. (Of course, payrolls go up in this case, so the correlation won't be zero)

Using this same logic, why would domestic programs (esspecially safety nets) be tied to economic growth during a good time? While I don't know the answer specifically - I don't think the difference was invested in infrastructure (which would be a reasonable spending increase in a 'good' time).

 

[Proton Soup]

you know, we could just pay off the debt in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9oKt6vT-w"

not sure if you guys are familiar with Bill Still or not, but he has some interesting ideas about how to handle the debt. the most obvious of course is to simply stop creating debt in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8s0JShs7o

for more background, there is a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkq2E8mswI" in his youtube channel.

 

[WhoWee]

Using this same logic, why would domestic programs (esspecially safety nets) be tied to economic growth during a good time? While I don't know the answer specifically - I don't think the difference was invested in infrastructure (which would be a reasonable spending increase in a 'good' time).

That's a key point. Long term spending should not be based on short term conditions. For instance, if the CBO factors in a 4% growth rate and the actual growth is 2% (or less) - we need to adjust spending downward - don't we?

 

[Newai]

Thank God!

Obama, Congress reach a debt deal

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ending a perilous stalemate, President Barack Obama announced agreement Sunday night with Republican congressional leaders on a compromise to avoid the nation's first-ever financial default. The deal would cut more than $2 trillion from federal spending over a decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-reach-debt-deal-003853348.html

 

[BobG]

It still has to be voted on.

The Senate will pass it. But will it pass the House?

With the Balanced Budget Amendment tossed out, it will lose a significant number of Republican votes. It's fate will rest with attracting enough Democratic votes to compensate for the lost Tea Party votes.

 

[WhoWee]

It still has to be voted on.

The Senate will pass it. But will it pass the House?

With the Balanced Budget Amendment tossed out, it will lose a significant number of Republican votes. It's fate will rest with attracting enough Democratic votes to compensate for the lost Tea Party votes.

Passage could be held up by "Left Wing Extremists" - led by Nancy Pelosi? (label IMO to save time and energy please)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-usa-debt-pelosi-meeting-idUSTRE76U2L420110731

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Passage could be held up by "Left Wing Extremists" - led by Nancy Pelosi? (label IMO to save time and energy please)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/31/us-usa-debt-pelosi-meeting-idUSTRE76U2L420110731

And the Tea Partiers are furious.

Obviously I want it to pass, and hopefully Obama and Pelosi can get the left to fall in line, but in principle that's what I like to see - both extremes unhappy. If it passes I'd say this circus has finally resulted in a successful [reasonable] compromise.

 

[mege]

And the Tea Partiers are furious.

Obviously I want it to pass, and hopefully Obama and Pelosi can get the left to fall in line, but in principle that's what I like to see - both extremes unhappy. If it passes I'd say this circus has finally resulted in a successful [reasonable] compromise.

I think the reaction from the TEA Party'ers is more like 'Wait, and you called us the hardliners?'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the reaction from the TEA Party'ers is more like 'Wait, and you called us the hardliners?'

That doesn't even make sense. No one on the left was saying "Damn the consequences!" to the threat of default, like Bachmann and much of the tea party. And no one the left is demanding that we amend the Constitution before we pay our bills.

The left is insisting that billionaires pay a little more in taxes, not that no billionaire shall pay another dime, like the tea partiers. I really don't see how the two positions compare; nevermind that spending cuts could be as much a negative on the economy right now as would poorly targeted tax increases [the tea partiers never mention that one!]. Either way, now - during an ailing recovery - is not the time for drastic spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. But the Dems can have another swing at this when the super-committee meets next fall. Likewise, more needs to be done to balance the budget on both sides - tax increases and spending cuts. That is ultimately the bottom line. All the rest is just a bunch of hooey. And it would be innane to do too much right now; planning yes, dramatic cuts, no! That is something else the partiers seem to miss in their fog of ideology.

 

[WhoWee]

That doesn't even make sense. No one on the left was saying "Damn the consequences!" to the threat of default, like Bachmann and much of the tea party. And no one the left is demanding that we amend the Constitution before we pay our bills.

Not so fast - let's not forget the topic of this thread - the Left wants the President to "Damn the Consequences" and go for the "nuclear option" and invoke the 14th - a challenge to the law. As for the amendment to the Constitution for a balanced budget - the Left certainly doesn't want that - do they?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The debt limit increase passed the house a few minutes ago. If my congressperson voted against, they're toast when it comes to my vote.

 

[turbo]

The debt limit increase passed the house a few minutes ago. If my congressperson voted against, they're toast when it comes to my vote.

Mine, too. To vote against paying the debt on money that was already appropriated and spent in order to hold "entitlements" spending hostage is beyond ridiculous. Apparently, there are enough morons in the US that the GOP thinks that they can score big points with this manufactured hostage "crisis".

 

[WhoWee]

Mine, too. To vote against paying the debt on money that was already appropriated and spent in order to hold "entitlements" spending hostage is beyond ridiculous. Apparently, there are enough morons in the US that the GOP thinks that they can score big points with this manufactured hostage "crisis".

When you consider the US borrows about 43% of it's spending - who is being held hostage turbo - the taxpayers that will have to eventually pay the bill or the beneficiaries of entitlements that have become dependent upon these programs - isn't that the real question?

 

[Proton Soup]

When you consider the US borrows about 43% of it's spending - who is being held hostage turbo - the taxpayers that will have to eventually pay the bill or the beneficiaries of entitlements that have become dependent upon these programs - isn't that the real question?

i know. damn the torpedoes. the crazy has to stop.

 

[BobG]

The debt limit increase passed the house a few minutes ago. If my congressperson voted against, they're toast when it comes to my vote.

The vote went 269 to 161. House Republicans voted for it 174 - 66. House Democrats split 95-95.

The vote, by Congressman (Dems in italics; Independents underlined): http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll690.xml

Just by the names I recognize (which isn't very many), it looks like the Tea Party Caucus and very liberal Dems both voted against it.

I'd say I'm voting against my Congressman (Tea Party Caucus member) because of his vote, but, actually, I've voted against him every time he's run for election.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Speaker Boehner clearly got his 269 votes out of the middle. (I would argue that had Speaker Pelosi followed the same strategy, she'd still be Speaker) Interestingly, most of the Democratic Chief Deputy Whips voted against it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My congressman is Jon Runyan R-NJ. I have sent him an e-mail thanking him for his aye vote.

 

[BobG]

I'd say I'm voting against my Congressman (Tea Party Caucus member) because of his vote, but, actually, I've voted against him every time he's run for election.

Of course, in my case, there's just so many reasons to vote against him, regardless of his Tea Party association. He's an idiot.

US Representative Doug Lamborn (R) on Obama

I don’t even want to have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby, and you get it — you know, you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now, and you can’t get away.

 

[WhoWee]

Of course, in my case, there's just so many reasons to vote against him, regardless of his Tea Party association. He's an idiot.

US Representative Doug Lamborn (R) on Obama

I haven't posted anything about needing term limits in the House lately - seems like a good time.

 

[mheslep]

The debt limit increase passed the house a few minutes ago. If my congressperson voted against, they're toast when it comes to my vote.

Why?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The debt limit increase passed the house a few minutes ago. If my congressperson voted against, they're toast when it comes to my vote.

Same here [Democratic rep]

I was just talking with a customer who bought into Bachmann's position that we can toy with this. He thinks we should just let the whole economy collapse and start from scratch [he said those words!].

My question to folks like this is, "What's the hurry?". It may all come crashing down one day but it's nuts to allow this when we still have a chance to get this under control. And we almost certainly will get this under control. The real scaremongering out there is the claim that we can't fix this, not the claims about what happens if we don't pay the bills.

This goes back to my observation that many tea partiers are actually out to destroy the country. They want to bring it all down. They don't want the America that we know and love. They want something else.

 

[WhoWee]

Same here [Democratic rep]

I was just talking with a customer who bought into Bachmann's position that we can toy with this. He thinks we should just let the whole economy collapse and start from scratch [he said those words!].

My question to folks like this is, "What's the hurry?". It may all come crashing down one day but it's nuts to allow this when we still have a chance to get this under control. And we almost certainly will get this under control. The real scaremongering out there is the claim that we can't fix this, not the claims about what happens if we don't pay the bills.

This goes back to my observation that many tea partiers are actually out to destroy the country. They want to bring it all down. They don't want the America that we know and love. They want something else.

Or perhaps they dream of a return to the "Happy Days" before we lived with a welfare state mentality?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Or perhaps they dream of a return to the "Happy Days" before we lived with a welfare state mentality?

That is nothing but delusional thinking. We created the welfare system because of the misery that existed without it.

The tea party dream is nothing but illusion and wishful thinking. They dream of a time that never existed.

If you want the good ole days, like the 50s and 60s, then you are asking for a 91% top marginal tax rate.

 

[WhoWee]

That is nothing but delusional thinking. We created the welfare system because of the misery that existed without it.

The tea party dream is nothing but illusion and wishful thinking. They dream of a time that never existed.

And you think this is a credible assessment?
"This goes back to my observation that many tea partiers are actually out to destroy the country. They want to bring it all down. They don't want the America that we know and love. They want something else. "

Perhaps I need to re-post the Cloward-Piven links regarding collapse of the system? Instead - why don't we let the "experts" on this topic speak for us - label as opinion please?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/26-3

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Why?

I noticed during the debate that the reasons for rejecting were problems that do not need to be fixed within the next few hours. For instance reduced spending is extremely important, but we can fix that next week. Raising revenues can be done during September. However, raising the debt limit had to be done right away. Anyone voting against that has, by definition, their priorities in the wrong order.

 

[turbo]

I noticed during the debate that the reasons for rejecting were problems that do not need to be fixed within the next few hours. For instance reduced spending is extremely important, but we can fix that next week. Raising revenues can be done during September. However, raising the debt limit had to be done right away. Anyone voting against that has, by definition, their priorities in the wrong order.

Even more twisted, IMO, is the linkage made by the right-wingers between entitlements and the debt-limit. The debt limit should have been increased without fuss, just as it has been over and over. If the tea party wants to reduce spending, they should act like adults and cut spending.

Attacking SS is irresponsible and potentially life-threatening to many seniors. SS is solvent for at least the next 25 years, and it can be made self-sustaining indefinitely by merely lifting the the cap on earnings so that higher wage earners pay a little more. If Congress would do that SOON, the increase could be minimized, since the Treasury bonds pay interest. If Congress wants to wait until SS is in real trouble before acting, then the fix could be painful. We desperately need some adults in DC!

 

[WhoWee]

Attacking SS is irresponsible and potentially life-threatening to many seniors. SS is solvent for at least the next 25 years, and it can be made self-sustaining indefinitely by merely lifting the the cap on earnings so that higher wage earners pay a little more. If Congress would do that SOON, the increase could be minimized, since the Treasury bonds pay interest. If Congress wants to wait until SS is in real trouble before acting, then the fix could be painful. We desperately need some adults in DC!

Spending the Social Security funds and leaving worthless paper behind isn't irresponsible? We need to quit making promises that we can't keep and expanding eligibility at the expense of the intended beneficiaries- IMO.

 

[mheslep]

I noticed during the debate that the reasons for rejecting were problems that do not need to be fixed within the next few hours. For instance reduced spending is extremely important, but we can fix that next week. Raising revenues can be done during September. However, raising the debt limit had to be done right away. Anyone voting against that has, by definition, their priorities in the wrong order.

After observing the debate and the positions taken by the various parties I would say that i) neither this Senate or this President will agree to any additional cuts whatsoever absent the force of some kind of partial or total shut off of funds; there will be no cuts absent those conditions. Indeed, in his speech today just prior the debt limit vote the Senate leader Reed inexplicably called for *more* highway funding. ii) There are no hard revenue proposals from any party that would dent the deficit. iii) It was not clear to me at all that raising the debt limit *had* to be done right away with current revenues. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen the case made, and it has to be very good case given i) and ii). What or how did you observe differently?

 

[turbo]

Spending the Social Security funds and leaving worthless paper behind isn't irresponsible? We need to quit making promises that we can't keep and expanding eligibility at the expense of the intended beneficiaries- IMO.

Please back up your assertion that interest-bearing Treasury bills are "worthless". That's the kind of foolish talk that the tea-party has been tossing around.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

After observing the debate and the positions taken by the various parties I would say that i) neither this Senate or this President will agree to any additional cuts whatsoever absent the force of some kind of partial or total shut off of funds; there will be no cuts absent those conditions. Indeed, in his speech today just prior the debt limit vote the Senate leader Reed inexplicably called for *more* highway funding. ii) There are no hard revenue proposals from any party that would dent the deficit.

Then the debt limit doesn't work as intended. Let's get rid of it.

iii) It was not clear to me at all that raising the debt limit *had* to be done right away with current revenues. Perhaps so, but I haven't seen the case made, and it has to be very good case given i) and ii). What or how did you observe differently?

It had to be done right away because S&P said they would lower the US credit rating otherwise. In brinkmanship, the idea is to stop before you careen off the cliff. When you do, there will alway be someone who says "Why did you stop? We still had time." If that is your point, then you are correct, there were still a few hours left.

 

[mheslep]

Meanwhile US Debt is http://www.usdebtclock.org/" as of now, still churning along at $4.1B per day, closing on the US gross product of $14,819B. The debt should pass the GDP before the year is out.