The balls on these people:
Huge chutzpah points to House Speaker John Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel, who sends along a statement of support in response to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s byzantine plan to avoid a debt default.
“The Speaker shares the Leader’s frustration,” Steel says. “Republicans are unified in our commitment to ensuring that the debt limit is not used as leverage to saddle small businesses with increased taxes that destroy jobs.”
So it was the Democrats using the debt limit as leverage this whole time? I have a whole bunch of corrections to write.
Who will be the first “reporter” to advance this bullshit? Safe money is always on that right-wing hack Halperin.
Tonal Crow
High Boboism in 5…4…3….
Mustang Bobby
That’s right up there with “There are no Americans in Baghdad; I would stake my life on it.”
Well, as they say, when life hands you lemons, make whiskey sours.
OzoneR
Too bad Obama doesn’t use the bully pulpit, perhaps sit down with a major network news anchor, in an evening news exclusive. Float the risk that Social Security checks won’t go out unless Congress raises the debt ceiling. something like that. too bad he won’t do that.
JGabriel
And we’re surprised by this … why?
This is what Republicans always do: project their sins onto Democrats.
.
cd6
I don’t know about any actual “reporters” but I bet a million dollars Captain Special Ed is pushing it within 24 hours.
arguingwithsignposts
Jake Tapper mentioned it in the abc evening news standup, iirc
lamh34
Halperin’s already had a post up with a picture of Cantor which he titled “Put Up Or Shut Up” but the captions says “Cantor demands the President give “details” on entitlement reforms, not “a speech.”
Read more: http://thepage.time.com/#ixzz1Rw9ziOJG
”
Halperin’s such a dick!!!
cyntax
I’ll go with anyone on the Politico staff (not including Tapper).
ETA: @arguingwithsignposts: or maybe I’m wrong
jl
Did Cole make fun of that officer who grabbed a thin little mattress pad to cover his head during the Doha Dash, and say ‘the balls on that dude’?
Heartless, Cole is.
demkat620
Not shocking at all.
Spaghetti Lee
Well, you know, Democrats aren’t supposed to be assertive (“uppity”, one might say), so Obama telling the GOP to put up or shut up on the debt limit is simply unconscionable. I’m heading for my fainting couch as I speak!
J.W. Hamner
OzoneR:
I’m curious as to how long it takes for the (apparent) success of this PR gambit to be spun as proof positive that Obama could have gotten the public option if he really wanted. Glen Greenwald you are now on the clock.
General Stuck
Now that is some deep and wide bullshit to launder, even for the servile msm. I kind of expected Boenher would keep it up some longer than this. The little chickenshits, create a crisis out of whole cloth that involves not only this country’s vital interest, but that of the world as well. And then they up and fucking punt, get in the clown car and drive away from the crime scene, dropping some cockamamy plan to let Obama solve the big crisis by his lonesome. They just hand over the keys to the debt ceiling, and let the Kenyan big spender have his way with heartland America dollars and destroying America and shit. Jeebus, we need to trade for some better wingnuts, or at least ones with some staying power to see the crazy through.
What a weird little country we have.
ObamaBotMoFo2012
And the Republicans get even MORE desperate as they cave deeper and deeper. One Atlantic reporter called the McConnell plan “one of the clearest statements of legislative cowardice I have ever seen,” while Erick Erickson at Redstate wants McConnell burned at the stake.
Obama has these fuckers by the balls, and they aren’t liking it one bit.
Spaghetti Lee
while Erick Erickson at Redstate wants McConnell burned at the stake.
In McConnell’s defense, there isn’t enough fire in the world for all the people EE wants burned at the stake.
Baud
This just came across my AP ticker:
Enjoy!
Martin
Wasn’t Atrios the first?
OzoneR
success? LOL
arguingwithsignposts
Btw, threads on this are moving so fast that i’ll just repeat myself. It should come as no surprise to anyone that grover fucking norquist likes mcconnell’s plan. There are no taxes in this plan. It keeps his treasonous “no taxes ever” pledge solid for another round. And he’s a corporatist.
CT Voter
My money is on Ed Henry, but someone got there first…
Zach
It’s amazing how badly McConnell screwed this up. I’d figured a couple weeks ago that this was the most likely outcome (Congress passes ceiling increase; uses parliamentary scheme to blame Democrats for the whole thing; GOP uses that in 2012 elections). All McConnell had to do was leak it to the right people first — people with influence who he knew would be receptive to the apparent political appeal of the thing. See Grover Norquist’s approval of this move, for instance. Instead, he spreads it around Congress, it gets leaked somehow in a way that looks bad for Mitch, and the first time we get the details is in a hasty press conference. After the tax compromise that didn’t actually reduce spending, first-term and Tea Party Republicans aren’t going to trust anything that originates with Mitch McConnell.
Sorta sucks since I was giddy to see the GOP try to make a campaign commercial centered on the debt ceiling. 80% of Americans have no idea what that is and just say they’re against raising it when pollsters call because it sounds bad.
ObamaBotMoFo2012
@Baud
And President Obama has the last laugh as the Republicans prove that all that deficit/debt talk was kabuki political theater. He offered $4 trillion in cuts and was willing to take the heat from his own party, and the Republicans ran away like the bitches that they are.
There’s no PR machine that can frame this as a win for the Republicans, not when the establishment are lashing against their leaders in Congress.
AAA Bonds
“Those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.”
“How does it keep up with the news like that?”
J.W. Hamner
OzoneR:
In what way is McConnell saying “no mas” and trying to tap out a failure for Obama?
Caz
Someone please tell me where I’m wrong here:
If the debt limit is not raised, the govt will not be able to borrow more money.
Therefore, they will not have enough money to spend at current levels on everything they spend on.
Debt payments are a small pct. of the total revenues.
So govt can pay our debt payments (no default), and then with what “little” money is left, they will have to prioritize their spending.
This means they will consider, “Should we stop sending out SS checks, or should we cut the budget of the dept. of education? Should we eliminate medicare, or cut back significantly on foreign aid to all nations (virtually every country on earth receives handouts from our nearly broke govt)?
So keeping the debt limit in place will force the govt to (finally!!) cut spending. They can debate what to cut it on, and I’m sure stuff like medicare and SS will not be cut, but other stuff will be (long overdue as it is!).
So please, someone, tell me where this automatic default after August 2nd comes from, and why forcing the govt to cut spending and live within its means is a bad idea?
When an irresponsible spender has maxed out its credit line and is spending more than it takes in, why is it a good idea to give them a new credit card??
We have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem.
We have missed the “deadline” three times since 1990, and each time debt payments continued to be paid on time until a deal was reached.
The debt limit was raised 102 times since it was implemented in 1917. It was raised 10 times under big spender Bush, and three times under bigger spender Obama.
So can someone tell me where I’m wrong? Believe me, I think Bush was a disaster for this country. I think Obama is a bigger one. Irresponsible, corrupt, drunk on power and control politicians have been running the show for far too long, so why not finally do something to force them to do what they obviously can’t or won’t do on their own – cut spending!
I’ll be back to view any responses to this, hopefully to get some logical reasoning why I’m missing something or why I’m wrong.
Hugh
Good! The Republicans are backing down and doing so in their classic dishonest way. If they had said yes to some tax raising however would we also be looking at age 67 for Medicare and other precedent-setting, disastrous compromises from the White House on entitlements? Seems to me we’re pretty lucky that didn’t happen. But it’s out there now for future negotiations. I can’t say I feel at ease. Still, nice to see Obama put the screws on. Maybe he’ll do that some more!
Tonal Crow
I’d like some more clarity on what McConnell’s plan really is. All the sources I’ve found (e.g., http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/170987-mcconnell-fall-back-plan-that-leaves-debt-ceiling-hike-to-obama , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ , http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/mcconnell-proposal-gives-obama-power-to-increase-debt-limit/?hp ) are really indefinite about how the spending-cuts-proposal feature works. I suppose McConnell’s intent is to force Obama to “propose” cutting the entire defense budget, half of Medicare, etc., in order to get the debt-ceiling increase. Is that what he’s really proposing?
AAA Bonds
I have to admit, I did not foresee the Republicans coming forward with a “look like total weaklings” plan, even as pageantry.
Eventually, though, they were going to get trained by their corporate funding – it’s why they can’t do jack about immigration.
Violet
@Baud
Ah yes, the “walk back” phrase. Limbaugh was bleating that phrase today over and over again: “He said it on the floor of the Senate! How can he walk that back? He can’t walk it back!” Etc. Must’ve got their talking points.
I wonder how the Murdoch mess is going to affect the coverage of the debt ceiling. Fox’s rank and file may not know what their talking points are supposed to be if the head guys’ are too busy with the phone hacking scandal.
Bender
What?? 2 measley billion? With a “b?” Out of a $3.7 Trillion budget and a $1.4 Trillion deficit? $2 Billion? What is that — .05% of next year’s deficit?
If McConnell had any balls, he would’ve laughed his ass off and walked out of the room and into a press conference to make fun of Obama’s idea of “sacrifice.”
OzoneR
Raising the debt ceiling isn’t popular, raising the debt ceiling without cuts is even MORE unpopular.
Obama does it and they get to label him a spending machine for the next year a half, running those commercials with the dude digging a hole from 2010 that were so effective.
AAA Bonds
Caz, the answer is, get the fuck out.
JGabriel
@Spaghetti Lee:
Honestly, there is. But in global nuclear holocaust, Erikson goes up in flames, too.
.
dmsilev
By the way, Grover Norquist is backpedaling a bit:
Also, “Leader McConnell”? Sounds kind of weird, but guess he couldn’t bring himself to tack “Minority” on in front.
AAA Bonds
@Violet:
That’s all in Ailes’s hands and until the damage hits Fox News directly I doubt he will (or can) do anything more than worry about it on his off hours.
Baud
@Tonal Crow
Ezra’s was the most detailed description I found. Try there.
Tonal Crow
ObamaBotMoFo2012:
You’re killing me. The Republicans’ propaganda machine could frame Boehner raping, torturing, and killing a newborn on live TV as a “win for the Republicans”.
arguingwithsignposts
@caz
It would take far too much energy on a hot day to explain all the levels of fail in your boilerplate, (starting with the idea that a default would have little impact on u.s. Finances) but others are welcome to it.
Martin
From what I can tell, the plan doesn’t increase the debt ceiling at all.
1) Obama says “I’m going to raise the debt ceiling or else I need to cut x, y, z”.
2) The Senate then censures him for doing that.
3) Obama then vetoes the censure.
4) ???
5) Debt ceiling raised.
I think it’s just Congress’ way of saying ‘If you violate the Constitution here, we promise to not impeach you, and in exchange you get to keep selling bonds.’
Thoughtcrime
Caz,
Here’s your answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA&feature=related
Baud
@Ozone
Won’t work as well since they will be voting to authorize the President to raise the debt limit.
AAA Bonds
@arguingwithsignposts:
Oh no no no, you don’t pass the guinea pig around while it’s peeing.
Lolis
The new language is straight from a Luntz focus group is my guess. We should be happy though. It shows they are losing the framing war.
Villago Delenda Est
This part is pure, unadulterated, straight from someone’s ass bullshit.
JGabriel
@Caz:
This is exactly wrong. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire and the completely non-onerous Clinton rates go back into effect, and half the debt vanishes.
.
J.W. Hamner
OzoneR:
The debt ceiling has been raised nearly 100 times, and I’m sure every one of those times the opposition party has made political hay from it and the President has taken the blame. McConnell’s plan merely formalizes this arrangement and prevents anybody from taking the economy prisoner. I’d take this deal in a heart beat.
Too bad the House is full of sociopaths.
AAA Bonds
@Villago Delenda Est:
Well, it’s a particular kind. It’s three decades-old Republican talking points, right there, bam, bam, bam.
I think for a load, it’s too loaded for even most Republicans to take seriously.
Tonal Crow
@Baud: Ezra’s description makes sense except for the phrase “[McConnell’s proposal] would force Senate Democrats to repeatedly vote to raise the debt ceiling”. As Ezra describes the proposal, Senate (and House) Democrats could just vote to disapprove the debt limit increase, let Obama veto the disapproval, and leave it at that.
AAA Bonds
So why do we have Congress again? I’m really not sure.
Elizabelle
Sounds like refrigerator magnet talk.
AAA Bonds
@J.W. Hamner:
Usually everyone just screeches at each other in a back room and then they come out with a “hard-won compromise”. So far the only difference is Fox News.
bobbo
Zach:
Sure you did.
Tonal Crow
@Martin: I don’t think there’s any violation of the Constitution in that plan. First, Congress implicitly delegates the power to raise the debt ceiling to Obama. Then Obama proposes raising it, Congress disapproves via law, and Obama vetoes the law. The delegation remains in place. Upon first reflection, this is not fundamentally different from Congress delegating authority to any ordinary administrative agency.
AAA Bonds
@Elizabelle:
It’s Luntz talk, and I mean it’s Luntz talk from 1994. The only new addition I notice is linking the Luntz-beloved word “destroy” with “jobs”, a slight tinkering that became the new Republican line in 2010.
Calouste
So Boehner is ok with using the debt limit as leverage to increase taxes on large companies? Someone better notice the Chamber of Commerce.
RossInDetroit
So is this the point where the public wakes up and sees the GOP’s “black is white”, “War is peace” nonsensical statements for what they are? I’m not betting money on it. They’ll go on blaming the dog for the busted lamp and get off scott free.
Martin
Mandatory spending for 2010 (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, debt service) is $2.173 trillion – this is stuff that must get paid out from the budget as required by earlier legislation. Total revenue is $2.381 trillion. That leaves $208 billion for ‘everything else’. Defense is $664 billion, of which $120 billion is for Iraq/Afghanistan. Assuming we pay for the wars first, we have $88 billion, which barely covers military salary and benefits, but we don’t want to fuck with the troops, now do we?
So we’ve prioritized out of the budget:
All other defense spending, procurement, etc. We can’t fuel our planes or carriers or buy bullets.
Close the VA. (so much for supporting the troops)
All transportation spending (who needs air traffic controllers).
Close HHS, CDC, etc.
Close state department.
Close homeland security, FBI, CIA, NSA, immigration and border control, etc.
Close dept of education.
Close dept of energy (nobody looking over our reactors).
Close dept of agriculture
Close the federal courts
Close NASA
Close commerce dept
Close labor dept
Close treasury
Close interior dept
Close the EPA
Close the Social Security administration (we have money to put into checks, and nobody to actually send the checks, so sorry)
Oh, and close Congress, the WH, all embassies, and well, everything else.
Only a wingnut could come up with a plan this awesome.
MikeJ
@RossInDetroit:
Ask the public if taxes are higher or lower since Obama took office. This is something they should be able to very easily recognize.
I’d guess 80% of Americans get it wrong, which would include a fair number of Democrats.
Martin
Couldn’t that argument be made by Congress passing the very budget Obama is trying to implement, though?
MikeJ
@Martin: The wingnuts are in favor of about 90% of that. Close Dept of Education? they’ve been screaming it for years. Energy? No regs on coal mining! etc, etc.
Caz
So not one actual answer, just a bunch of immature bullshit, as usual. That means you don’t have a legit response to what I said, which was said in complete seriousness in an effort to see the logic of the liberal point of view. The fact that “get the fuck out” is the type of response I get to my legit inquiry just confirms that you liberals don’t have a logical response and that it’s all rhetoric and bullshit.
Don’t any of you have the balls to actually debate the issue with someone who disagrees with you?? I know you are all well versed in the canned statements and positions of the national liberal figureheads and politicians, but the fact that none of you can or will give a reasoned response just shows that your position on this issue is totall bullshit.
I’m not surprised by the responses, but it is really disappointing. I thought at least one of you might actually want to engage in an intelligent debate. What the hell is wrong with you that you are so afraid of actually debating a very key issue facing our nation today?? Really, really pathetic.
Ok, well, whatever. I guess I can just infer from the 5 year old responses that none (most) of you really don’t understand the issue and are afraid to debate it because you know your position on it is totally whacked.
This isn’t a political blog. It’s more like an Association of Shallow Shills.
I’ll check back again one more time to see if any of you actually care to have an intelligent debate. At least one of you must have the courage to engage me on this issue. What are you all so afraid of??
Just Some Fuckhead
@J.W. Hamner:
Yeah, and too bad the White House is full of idiots.
General Stuck
The wingnuts default position, and prime attack meme on dems has forever been the “tax and spend liberal” canard, and they will continue to bleat it out like half wired robots.
In 2006, after they lost the House, on the very first day, they started back with that shit like it was 1994, and like the past 12 years of their own spend and borrow ways never happened.
What is important here, was a concerted effort to bring to heel this dem president into signing on by caving to their spending cuts and no new taxes dogma. That would have been something they could have destroyed Obama with for 2012, and a means of extortion they would then use to dismantle 80 years of progressive leg. Very high stakes, played against even higher stakes of causing the US to default on its debt.
All Obama had to do was agree with working toward a balanced budget, in principle, but insisting on new taxes from the GOP side. Something they could never deliver on from internal GOP politics. Not eleven dimensional anything, but with good timing to cause the wingers to be caught in their own dumb trap.
It is never a good thing to do, brinkmanship, when it is on your side to deliver the solution by way of new legislation to fix a perceived problem. The odds are high your bluff will be called, because of the high likelyhood of getting blamed for the affirmative action you fail to deliver, causing the adverse result. And doubly so when the consequences of not delivering it are so dire as with not raising the debt ceiling.
Much better when the other guy has to do what is necessary to avert disaster, and you have some other leverage to cause them to hesitate or fail to deliver that action. Or alter it is some favored way to your side.
Having coopted Obama to sign onto their demands without providing any new revenues, would have been the end of Obama’s presidency, most likely. I guess they still think he is stupid, or something, after near three years now.
arguingwithsignposts
@Martin, and that’s not even getting to the huge sucking sound of all the discretionary spending from gov’t employees, contractors, etc. being pulled out of the economy. Small case study in Minnesota going on as we speak, sorta.
Southern Beale
I don’t understand why Mitch McConnell is being treated like the fucking majority leader by everyone. Where is Harry Reid?
Roger Moore
@dmsilev:
I think he meant to say it in German but accidentally used the English translation instead.
arguingwithsignposts
@southern beale: i believe reid is standing out of the way of all the rope the g.o.p. Is wrapping around its neck.
Tonal Crow
@Martin (59): If you’re asking whether Republicans would be subjecting themselves to rage from the teatards for voting to delegate debt-ceiling authority to Obama, the answer is yes. But I don’t think it’s quite the same rage as that that would result from actually voting to raise the debt limit.
I wonder whether Obama has given McConnell & Boehner the “enemy combatant” speech?
rikyrah
Lawrence O’Donnell is at it tonight. he’s on fire- hilarious
Lolis
@Caz
Stop whinging because nobody wants to waste their time on you. Go read Krugman, Bartlett or DeLong if you want details on why the debt ceiling needs to be raised. Plenty of economists have explained this. Use teh Google.
Mike
Because they wouldn’t be doing that anyways…
Tonal Crow
@Mike (71): Exactly.
Rick Taylor
This is not at all surprising. It was a downside of the Democrats attempting to engage the Republicans in a negotiation in response to extortion, thereby implicitly legitimizing the tactic.
J.W. Hamner
Just Some Fuckhead:
I’m no fan of a “grand bargain” on the deficit when the economy is so weak, but I think it’s hard to argue that things aren’t going pretty well for the “idiots” in the WH right now. Certainly you could argue that they should have demanded a clean vote from the beginning, but… for the moment at least… they seem to be winning politically from this approach.
aisce
@ martin
the president doesn’t have a budget. the senate doesn’t have a budget. nobody has a budget. (well, paul ryan did, but he tried to abolish medicare and now his party wishes otherwise). the very notion of a “budget” is passe. the ship of state is on autopilot because the senate doesn’t work and the teabaggers are fucking psychotic.
you’re missing the way the game is played now. there’s no benefit in actually coming up with serious proposals for anything. nowadays, you just invent vague spending targets, say the word “trillion” a lot, and wait for the other side to self-implode.
there was no $2 trillion dollar plan. there was no $4 trillion dollar plan. there was no biden-negotiation plan. there was no medicare plan. there was no tax plan. there was no tea party plan. there was never any plan at any stage of the game. nothing above the scale of a cocktail napkin. it’s all a lie. there are no compromises. there are no “big things” for us to do.
everybody who pays attention to the day-to-day twists and turns on stuff like this is a chump. they’re playing you. no honest attempt at governance will be made until 2013. enjoy the kabuki, though. our performers are pulling out all the stops this season. it’s a hell of a show.
MikeJ
@Rick Taylor:
Of course this is explicitly what Obama ran on. When Obama said “change” he meant “talking like adults.” Sadly, too many on the left thought he meant, “do to the republicans what they’ve been doing to us” even though he told them that’s not what he meant.
Elie
…and just sos we keep the larger landscape in perspective (thought not directly dependent but related to “stability of western governments” — Italy is now in play as the next economic catastrophe le and we know Greece and Ireland are still running up major tabs.
Can you imagine — just imagine, what would have happenned if the US had defaulted on its debts? Seriously! Global catastrophe (economic) — FOR SURE. Even the dim bulbs in the repub outhouse leadership . could figure THAT out. Obama had already figured some of that from his information on the status of western European government financial statuses. He just “ran it down to” the Repubs. He knew, and they knew they were now bitches and for reality mode, HIS bitches in the next electoral cycle. As much as they hated him, no one wanted to go back to caves and the bronze age economically.
But pay attention kidees. The western economic and political scene has a few surprises that are fairly scary. Ideology aside, the Repubs, representing the business sector and greedy capitalism, see that real clear. The n—-r doesnt change THAT reality… we are far from safe but the stupid dog (the repub leadership) are on a choke chain held by the business sector —
piratedan
@Caz: maybe Caz, because we’ve tried engaging in conversation with you before on other topics of interest and you still keep coming back like a one note nickelodeon that’s out of tune. After a while its tiresome, go do something worthwhile, volunteer for a local charity.
John O
When is one of our useless hacks going to ask where the fucking jobs are after 10 years of Bush tax cuts?
It’s a simple goddamn question.
JPL
Lolis lol… Now another troll returns to redstate because he reads that great economist from Macon, Ga. lol
Mnemosyne
I am working this phrase into a conversation at my earliest opportunity.
arguingwithsignposts
@mnemosyne – i lol’d as well. Kudos aaa bonds.
Villago Delenda Est
The proof is in the pudding.
After a decade of giving away the store to the forever greedy, the answer is, there are no jobs.
In 2001, the US government budget was in surplus, and the debt was being paid down.
PAID DOWN.
The vermin that are the Teabaggers did not object when Bush changed that situation.
Shitheads like Caz deserve the back of our hands, at best.
RossInDetroit
Looks like all along Obama was trying to negotiate with a partner that didn’t actually have anything to offer. “Give us everything we want and you get nothing” was all their enraged base would support. Ultimately, they had to leave the table empty handed. How do you like your rigid ideologue supporters now, Mitch?
JC
Caz,
First off, as has been said prior:
“We have a spending problem in this country, not a revenue problem.”
Not true. The level of tax revenue as percentage of income, is at it’s lowest level in, something like 50 years? (That’s the problem, I don’t bookmark the links for this stuff)
As Geithner has said, ““If Congress failed to increase the debt limit, a broad range of government payments would have to be stopped, limited or delayed, including military salaries and retirement benefits, Social Security and Medicare payments, interest on the debt, unemployment benefits and tax refunds,” Geithner wrote in his April 4 letter to Congress.”
Doing so would be catastrophic for a lot of people, not to mention completely chaotic in any ‘implementation’.
Not to mention, the US enjoys incredibly good rates, and as I understand it, this would set off a flight of money from US coffe. As one credit agency said, the credit rating of the US would suffer. Higher interests rates for all.
One thing you do point out, is that the debt ceiling has been uncontroversially raised, throughout our political history. Because it is paying our CURRENT liabilities. It’s paying off a credit card, not issuing more credit. The US has ALREADY BUDGETED for the level of debt, implicit in the debt ceiling raise. If the Republicans cared about the deficit – which they don’t – the time to deal with it is writing the federal budget, not refusing to pay the credit cards, thus throwing the ‘credit card’ from 5% interest to an obscene interest rate – which defaulting, or the danger of defaulting would do.
“I think Obama is a bigger one. Irresponsible, corrupt, drunk on power and control politicians have been running the show for far too long, so why not finally do something to force them to do what they obviously can’t or won’t do on their own – cut spending!”
The above is a statement of belief, and not a statement of fact. Since your statements of fact have been off base, you need to back it up more than your beliefs.
billy rae vallentine
@Caz
i imagine that people don’t respond to your posts is because they are EXHAUSTINGLY offensive. I can only speak for myself but I’ve seen you troll in other threads. I didn’t know you (I am new here) but I saw a post that was a stand-out in its ignorance and offensive effect and it enfuriated me. I’m just being honest. I saw your name.
I had a feeling of “I don’t know where to begin”. Sometimes I have a bad day and I don’t feel like “getting into it”, you know? I remembered your name after that. Since then, I’ve seen you post that “Oh I’m just honestly trying to understand” line in every post you make where your disdain for liberals is blatantly apparent but you have your disclaimer that you are just a genuine guy who is super-objective and wants to hear logical arguments.
I don’t believe you, first of all. Then when no one responds it’s like you feel you’ve won what you wanted all along; to have a kind of superiority over the libs. But honestly, other than right now, I would not waste too much time trying to “convince” someone I’ve already dismissed as NOT SERIOUS AT ALL. I put you in my “troll/flamer” box. And I’m a noob here! I imagine the regulars spotted your schtick easier, sooner, and with a decision to ignore even as I grappled with my emotions. There are a bunch of right-wing people here who present solid arguments which I read and take in; also some passionate progressives disappointed with our administrations’s centrism. But you are, to me, just a jerk here to flame posters.
I hope that provides insight. Also, someone provided you a youtube link. Assuming that it wasn’t a link to the lemon party, it’s unfair to say no one responded rationally. But if no one did, it’s because they considered you not worth it, I’m guessing.
ppcli
@Roger Moore: I was thinking exactly the same thing — evidently the Republicans believe in the “Leader-principle”.
stuckinred
And in important news:
Today (July 12, 2011), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the distance education portion of the U.S. Department of Education’s (USDOE) ‘state authorization regulations.
billy rae vallentine
I’m not sure how to quote but @OzoneR
he did exactly that today. feel better? maybe you were being sarcastic because you already saw him on CBS today. I saw the video on huffpost.
Felanius Kootea
@Southern Beale Adhering to that fine saying, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
artem1s
@Baud:
Thoughtcrime
Villago Delenda Est @83
I think this would be more fitting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enUo-1TjdEs&feature=related
ObamaBotMoFo2012
You would think, after shellacking two veteran Senators, one the wife of a former President and with HUGE connections within the Democratic Party, during Election 2008 would have gotten these clowns in touch with reality. Barack Obama went from polling dead last in 2007 to winning the Presidency in 2008, he didn’t get that far by being stupid or naive.
The Republicans were hoping to “Jimmy Carter” President Obama, well it’s not happening, that’s why you aren’t seeing too many Republicans calling him “Jimmy Carter’s second term” as much these days, from what I can tell. I could be wrong of course, but I’m just not seeing it.
stuckinred
ObamaBotMoFo2012
they mouth the words “worst president ever” but only the 37% and Jane buy it.
Chuck Butcher
This is a hell of a lot of celebrating something that isn’t done, by any means. We’ll see how this goes since the House hasn’t indicated any sign of going along.
Spaghetti Lee
Any info on results from CA-36 or the WI primaries? Are the polls still open or something?
Roger Moore
@Felanius Kootea:
Unfortunately, this idea doesn’t work as well when you’re stuck on a life raft with your enemy and his mistake is to poke it full of holes. We can’t afford to let the Republicans make some kinds of mistakes because they’ll drag the rest of us down with them.
Bob Natas
A couple of points:
1. I highly doubt there was ever any real risk of default. It would be difficult to imagine information in the “secret” negotiations not being provided to the interested parties in the bond market. The disaster would have probably happened prior to any official default. The increase in the debt ceiling was never in doubt; the only question is, as usual, how the spoils are divided, so to speak.
2. I’m “intrigued” by the McConnell decision; on its own, it makes no sense to me. I don’t see McConnell as being a complete fool, so why would he do this so soon? We don’t know yet if the threat to renege on SS payments has teeth.
3. On point 2: maybe McConnell wants to put O in a position to come forward with an actual proposal. This might result in some surprises, and not good ones.
4. It is difficult for me to believe in the “political masterstroke” theory (though I guess it can’t be ruled out).
5. In any case, no one is going to remember this by the time that November 2012 rolls around. I see Obama’s viability as a function of the number of unemployed people roaming around. This number is going to remain high. I shudder to think of the gnashing of teeth that will occur around here if he loses to a Bachmann (although it would be, in a sense, extremely humorous as well).
ObamaBotMoFo2012
They should have gotten the hint during the primaries when then Senator Obama refused to get in the mud with Hillary Clinton, and during the general election with John McCain and Sarah Palin, that he was going to be respectful to his opponents, as vile as they may be… yet they claim that his respect towards his opponents is him “being spineless.”
We saw Alan Grayson take it to the Republicans his entire one term as a Congressman, where is he now? Running for Congress AGAIN because he was more focused on pleasing the firebaggers over the Internet as opposed to listening to his constituents back home, which is why he LOST by a healthy margin. As much as the firebaggers want to believe that the public wants a leftwing Rush Limbaugh as President, evidence has shown otherwise, especially a recent poll I’ve seen (it may have been Gallup) that shows that the public prefers compromise over sticking to values and not giving in. Sticking to your values REALLY ends up pissing the public off when it ends up affecting their wallets, but I digress.
chopper
@Caz:
aw, shucks, mom, we didn’t mean it. can we still have dessert?
ObamaBotMoFo2012
@stuckinred
“Worst President Ever” against Obama is one of the talking points of the right wing, and it’s telling how the firebaggers have co-opted it, along with other right wing smears against Obama.
As I continue to point out, (digressing AGAIN) they end up helping Republicans by continuing to attack President Obama. Here, we have Obama grasping the Republicans right by the balls as they continue to cave in, yet the purity left is convinced that 100% without a doubt that the Republicans are only doing this because President Obama is going to cut benefits on SS/Medicare. They used the same talking points during the tax cut extension fight. They were wrong then and they are wrong now, Barack Obama is not as stupid as they continue to project.
stuckinred
ObamaBotMoFo2012
ding
The Other Chuck
@Martin:
Censure is not a bill. The president can’t veto it any more than he can impeachment.
I would in fact dare congress to try to impeach Obama and see how far they get with that, but I suspect that the Consensus-Builder-In-Chief would rather give the Republicans everything they want before risking their collective disapproval like that.
different church-lady
We don’t have exclusively a spending problem.
We don’t have exclusively a revenue problem.
We have a YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL TOO GODDAMN WILLFULLY STUPID, ENTRENCHED, AND SELFISH TODAY, AND I MEAN ALL OF YOU, TO TRUST WITH DEMOCRACY problem.
stuckinred
For nearly three years, Missouri Democrat Thomas Hart Benton campaigned to expunge Jackson’s censure resolution from the Senate Journal. By January 1837,having regained the majority, Senate Democrats voted to remove this stain from the record of an old and sick president just weeks from his retirement. With boisterous ceremony, the handwritten 1834 Journal was borne into the mobbed chamber and placed on the secretary’s table. The secretary took up his pen, drew black lines around the censure text, and wrote “Expunged by the order of the Senate.”
Lojasmo
Went back to find the origin of the caz shit storm. Read caz’s second post, and lost two IQ points.
Read the first post subsequently.
We need to raise the debt limit in order to function, you tool. Do you see life getting cheaper around you?
Not to mention that Obama just rolled the cost of Bush’s bogus war into the debt (like a responsible executive would)
Things cost more over time. Obama wanted a 4 trillion dollar debt reduction, and congress could not figure out how to do it.
ETA: Steel is Boner’s balls.
stuckinred
Caz
I’m very serious about the issues that affect our country. I was a republican from age 13 (about when I started to get interested in politics) to about age 29, when I realized, after Bush’s disastrous first term, that republicans no longer embodied most of my values. I changed my affiliation to libertarian and have been equally displeased with both mainstream R’s and D’s since then.
But since Obama, a D, is currently leader, he is naturally going to get most of the flack. If Boehner got elected president, or Romney, you’ll hear the same disdain for them that I have for Obama.
I only want a president that does a few simple things: (1) adheres to the constitution, (2) is fiscally responsible, (3) stops running our country around the world as the world’s policeman and starting wars with countries that have nothing to do with us – let’s mind our own business for a change, which also means no more foreign aid for Pakistan, Israel, or ANY other country on earth, (4) a flat tax rate, (5) and pro-business policies, like a low corporate tax rate and fewer FEDERAL regulations, and, finally (6) respect the sovereignty of the states and their right under the constitution to run their affairs as they see fit.
So, yes, I’m very displeased with how the liberals want this country to be run. If and when some Bush-ish R gets elected in 2012, I’ll be just as displeased with his or her big govt policies as well.
Yeah, I post some sarcastic stuff on here as a troll. Is that any worse than the daily “Republicans are assholes and should die” posts that appear here, both in the blogs themselves and the comments? My “scathing” remarks are far less abrasive than most of the insulting over-the-line stuff that is already littering this site.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not serious. Does John Cole calling everyone an asshole mean he’s not serious about the issues? No, it just means he has no respect for anyone with a different opinion than his.
So when I post a legit, straightforward post on a liberal blog, full of liberals, I’m genuinuely looking for a straightforward, logical summary of the liberal point of view. Where better to get that from that BJ?
I appreciate the couple of comments that were serious or semi-serious responses to my post. The rest of you are just assholes, which you shouldn’t take offense to in light of the fact that there are numerous categories of blog entries on this site about different conservative assholes and asshole polices.
John posts something about Ryan being a smug asshole for drinking a $350 bottle of wine his buddy bought for them at dinner. Is that a serious post?? I didn’t hear any of you complain about that one. And I didn’t hear a peep when Obama hosted the leader of China and they busted open a case of $400 bottles of wine for him.
There is tons of hypocrisy and insults on this blog, but some of the posts are still serious, just as my post here was serious, notwithstanding that I have made sarcastic “he’s an asshole too” posts on here before in my trolling.
I just don’t understand why most of you are so hateful toward anyone who disagrees with you. It permeates the entire site and any newcomer who spends a few minutes perusing the blogs must be disgusted with the hate speech and smugness that is put forth daily.
So don’t tell me I’m not to be taken seriously because I made a crass or sarcastic post before. This entire blog is sarcasm, insults, rudeness, hatefulness, arrogance, indignance, hypocrisy, and bullshit.
So thanks to a few of you, and to the rest of you, as one person said to me above, “fuck off,” or something to that extent.
Good night BJ’ers.
stuckinred
Caz
Nobody gives a flying fuck what you think.
Lojasmo
https://balloon-juice.com/2011/07/12/how-long-before-this-is-the-new-cw/#comment-2668436
@Billy ray valentine:
Re. OzoneR
Your snarkometer is brokz.
Keith G
@caz
Go here and learn a few things:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/07/the-debt-ceiling-crisis-day-by-day-blow-by-blow.html
Lojasmo
Caz:
I yawn in your general direction.
An independent who will always vote for the republican is a waste of oxygen.
Kindly cleanse your descending colon with a rusty grill brush.
Keith G
And those are our good days.
Too long to be a banner?
scav
Caz, cogito ergo sum disproves your very existence.
ObamaBotMoFo2012
@Caz
Aren’t you late for the Ron Paul Bring Back the Confederacy Rally? Go ahead and vote for him, knowing that he is an avowed racist who would have voted against Civil Rights if he could. Quit raping our eyes with your essays, what a waste of pixel space.
stuckinred
Lojasmo
English Pig Dog!
Elizabelle
I never like the piling on on individual commenters.
Caz seemed sincere to me.
He (she?) is more civil than a lot of commenters one sees online.
I didn’t bother to engage because one had to start with examining one’s premises, and just not in the mood.
But it seems to me that people like Caz might be reachable — despite the professed cynicism — and what do you say to them?
Citizen_X
*Blush* Oh, gosh, you’re too kind. Tee hee!
No, you’re not to be taken seriously because you start right off with innumerate idiocy like this:
Quit whining, and go out and learn something before you post.
stuckinred
Elizabelle
“Caz seemed sincere to me.”
Really? Well don’t pile on then.
AAA Bonds
@Caz:
I’m not a liberal, you stupid little shit.
Elizabelle
Because Caz reminds me a bit of my brother in law, who would have been a Confederate, no doubt.
He’s a good guy, though (not a Confederate racist, at all, more of a “don’t tread on me” and he’s the guy who’s your kid’s really good soccer coach and an excellent general contractor.) He assumes Republicans are fiscally responsible and doesn’t watch closely enough to see they’re not.
He was horrified by the Terry Schiavo case, in that he thought Michael Schiavo should make the decision for his family, and not have Bill Frist diagnosing her condition from 5 states away.
There are a lot of “Caz” types out there, and I think they deserve more than derision.
scav
Elizabelle: normally, yeah, but this ambulatory stereotype has a history. the apparent sincerity is schtick, there’s a major force-field against evidence-based reasoning firmly in place.
Elizabelle
Hello stuck.
I thought he had a point. There’s a lot of assumed tribalism and groupthink here.
Lately the vehement despair and learned helplessness (“we’re hosed; maybe we do need and deserve Bachmann as president”) has got me reading way less closely.
Now Caz may very well be a troll. But I always appreciate the commenters who respond logically. (I learn a lot from them.)
ruemara
hey JW Hammer
He did. They blew him off. Why does no one recall what happened a scant month or so ago?
AAA Bonds
A center-right troll on a center-left website is pretty low rent
OzoneR
A million professional left heads just exploded.
Or at least they would have if there were a anywhere near a million of them.
AAA Bonds
YES LET’S TRY TO CONVERT THE TEA PARTY I AM RIGHT ON THAT
FlipYrWhig
@ AAA Bonds:
Dude, that was brilliant.
AAA Bonds
I would like to thank folks for liking my pee comment and calmly express that were Caz real, then Caz would be a lost cause for the Democrats.
Slowbama
Caz is like every other Republican who wants to be my Facebook friend and then hijacks all political commentary with contrarian spam. When called on it, they all say the same thing: Oh, I guess you just wanted to preach to the choir, then. When told it’s my Facebook page and you play by my rules or leave, they say, just like you libs to silence all dissent. The scenario ends when I confirm this by defriending them.
Villago Delenda Est
Caz is not part of that group.
Elie
There is so much history to read and understand to inform where we are. None of this is truly new — so painful that we can’t seem to learn enough to not repeat and repeat —
I enjoy some of the quips and the laughs, but sheesh — why is it all so predictable…like some old folk tale — Red Ridding Hood, Three Little Pigs and such…you know the story, the characters and the so called “moral of the story”. Can’t we have folks acting to obtain power and money without being so fucking obviously boring and stupid… can’t they entertain us a bit more with a least a modicum of intelligent showmanship? Geez!!! I have watched this same Klown Kar whirling round the big top and its just the same damned thing…. The only thrill, of course, is that the Klowns have gasoline and matches. THAT for sure gets my attention.
General Stuck
I don’t know why you all respond to Caz. Like hanging around waiting for the turnip truck to drive by to see what falls off.
hamletta
@Caz: TL;DR
Martin
Yeah, fuck you too. I give you a direct answer with numbers, and you skip right over it. No response. No refutation. And you claim that nobody actually gave you a serious answer. That’s the usual bullshit that I get from you whiners.
Refute my response. Tell me which of the mandatory spending laws (Congress’ term for it, not mine) should Obama violate? Discretionary spending for 2010 was $1.378T. 50% of that is defense, right off the top and you can’t even get through 1/3 of their budget. Next in line with a whopping 5.6% of the discretionary budget (2.2% of the total budget) is HHS which has such luxuries as the FDA and the CDC, along with CMS which administers Social Security and Medicare.
I would make the following proposition: If revenues are more than 10% higher than the sum of mandatory spending + defense, you can at least make an argument that we have a spending problem. The mandatory spending categories (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment) are generally backed by mandatory revenues – with the notable exception of debt service.
My proposition would say that $2.836T + 10% or $3.12T is a revenue point that allows for a very lean government – much leaner than any Dem would accept, and probably much leaner than any Republican could tolerate either. That leaves $283B for all real discretionary spending, running the IRS, CIA, FBI, ports, air traffic controllers, immigration – the works. That’s a pretty lean government right there. We’ve got revenues almost $800B lower than that number, and yet you claim we have a spending, not revenue problem.
You can read, right? You can do basic math, right?
piratedan
@Elizabelle: I get your point and for the most part I agree, but Caz only sees the insults and allows himself to feed on that negative energy while he completely ignores each measured and thoughtful response that counters his brain draino. So, many of the intelligent folks here, quite rightly imho, pass on his “sincere” concern trolling and as observed again in this thread; anyone who answers him, he ignores or restates what he said prior w/o actually engaging anyone other than to stalk off in his supposed poutrage.
handy
Stop it! No way!. Here?!
Mnemosyne
So, apparently if Caz had a friend who got himself into trouble with credit cards, he would advise the friend to immediately cut back on his hours at work to make sure he has even less income to pay those debts with.
Also, Caz, you do realize that the United States has over 300 million citizens, right? Why on earth do you think that 300 million people can live on less “income” (aka tax revenue) than 200 million did 40 years ago? Again, that’s like advising your friend whose wife just had a baby to cut his hours at work in half because of course you should be able to support 3 people with less income than before.
Non-Existent Patricia
Excuse the probably stupid question, but isn’t an actual default unpossible? (I mean to say, isn’t the US government constitutionally bound to pay its debt service first, even before any “mandatory” spending enacted by Congress – I do understand that any reduction in spending would have a real impact on real people.) I think this is the reason politicians have had no problem playing chicken with a “default” scenario and now certain ones are backing down. You can’t tell Grandma that she’s not going to get her SS check or her doctor’s visit covered because we had to stand on principle and not raise the debt limit or that Iraq War veteran won’t be able to go to the VA because we had to stand on principle. I know this tl;no one read, but it seems to me the Republicans were banking on “ZOMG, TOO MUCH DEBT” and it backfired (partly) because the administration said, “OK, but Grandpa Joe may not be able to cash his Social Security check.”
ETA: also, the service on current debt outstanding is less than tax receipts, so we would still be able to service our debt (but little else), therefore, no default.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@ Martin
In addition to the problems introduced by the raw numbers, and the legal issues of how do you refuse to pay for something already legally obligated, there’s also the massive problem of how do you physically do it?
Treasury makes an average of 3 million payments per day. Lots of computer systems would have to be reprogrammed to delay payments. Remember Y2K? Remember how long people had to prepare for that?
Reuters story from last week.
The debt ceiling must be increased. Sensible people will do it before the deadline, but it’s not clear how many sensible people are in the House these days…
Cheers,
Scott.
Non-Existent Patricia
@Scott(who isn’t sure who he wants to be yet) But there’s the rub, right? Are there enough sensible people in the house? How many newly elected members are looking around and thinking, “Governing is hard work, I’ll pull a Joe Scarborough and become a TV personality?” and how many are true believers? Because, obviously to anyone who has actually looked at the numbers, the debt ceiling must be increased, but unfortunately, we’re all betting on rationality were there may be none.
Non-Existent Patricia
@Patricia(who’s not altogether sure she is who she is) The Reuters story did not say what would happen in the event the Treasury payments went out even without a debt limit increase. I predict a disaster of biblical proportion, Old Testament, real wrath of God stuff.
TenguPhule
Shorter Caz: Math, I does not have it!
Martin
No, actually. I think that’s one of those kinds of questions that nobody ever dreams you’d need an answer to. I mean, rationally, you’d always prioritize debt service because even a hint of default and your borrowing costs go through the roof and then you fall into an interest death spiral from which there’s no escape, but President Ron Paul could refuse to pay that service, watch the bond rates go to 11, and then say ‘Problem solved, we can’t afford to borrow any more, bitches!’
Most state constitutions document who gets paid first, but I’m not aware of any such requirement on the feds.
As to what Obama chooses to prioritize, anyone who understands how the various funding pools operates would assume that SS and Medicare would go without a hitch because those programs continue to turn a surplus. But since the GOP is perfectly willing to lead the public into thinking that SS is sucking taxpayers dry, it would seem that Obama is willing to fight fire with fire and declare that SS and Medicare recipients will get the same shitty deal as everyone else. The budget says that Obama has to take the federal receipts and pay out to all of these programs, so there’s no way that he can possibly comply with the law without the debt ceiling increase, so he might as well comply in a manner that leads to the best overall outcome, which is an outcome of his choosing.
There’s an accounting ‘trick’ in all of this that’s both really stupid and also really important. Even though SS and Medicare and Unemployment all have these ‘independent’ funds to draw from, and even though revenues will continue, the administration of these programs don’t come out of those funds – it comes out of the discretionary budget. So there’s money to put into SS checks, but there’s no money to pay the people that send the checks. Same for the IRS – if you can’t pay Yutsy, you can’t collect the tax revenue, and then you can’t even pay the debt service, and if you’ve committed everything you have to the mandatory spending, it’s a bit like putting 100% of your paycheck into paying your credit card bill, but not having enough to buy the stamp to send it in.
That’s really where Obama’s threat lies. He’s not saying that SS is out of money, he’s saying that he may not be able to allocate the portion of the $9B or so in operating funds that the Social Security Administration needs to mail out checks, and that’s entirely at his discretion.
pattonbt
While Caz may (or may not) have had a sincere post above, his history here has earned the contempt. It’s the stupid projection that annoys and then “see, you stupid liberals don’t engage”.
I won’t bother digging because I’ve pointed it out many times before to Caz (and similar right-wing troll posters who always take this tack) that BJ has before shown exactly how they would close the deficit/debt loop. I want to say it was about October or November last year, the NYT had a “reduce the debt calculator” which BJ linked to and it allowed you to tinker with a handful of high level items (revenue and spending) to reduce (eliminate) the debt. It was easy, and almost all people here had some of the same answers (answers that have been repeated constantly and consistently, with minor tweaks for individual preferences): raise taxes on the wealthy (bringing them to Clinton era levels), cut defense (something you, Caz, would seem to support from your stated beliefs) and then a mix of other items. And BOOM, done, that easy. Debt gone.
So theres our proposal. Its been there forever. It hasnt changed. This argument of the day (this stupid debt ceiling hostage taking) is not that argument. So there you go – a liberal solution to the entire US debt problem.
Done.
Oh, and just to be clear, fuck you and your BS, regurgitated talking point “we dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem”. Any sane person agrees we have both.
Cheers.
Yutsano
@Martin:
And not to brag or nothing, but I just negotiated an agreement today to have a delinquent taxpayer pay $50K. I do some pretty damn important shit, but if you can’t pay us agents, you kiss a HUGE tax advantage good-bye. And the union has already ruled out free work.
Suffern ACE
Bruce Bartlett providing short answers to large debt questions.
http://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook-five-myths-debt-ceiling-0711.html?hpid=z1&tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
Martin
This is entertaining, thanks for the link. In case anyone should mistake that Bartlett has all of the answers:
Yeah, I don’t think he’s going to have called that one right.
Martin
HA!
Make sure you aren’t standing next to Ron Paul when that happens.
Non-Existent Patricia
@Martin @144: I guess it depends on how you define the “legitimacy of the public debt.” I would agree, however, that after debt service (with my reading of Section 4 of Amendment 14 to the US Constitution) all other spending becomes discretionary.
hypusine
Surely I’m missing something. How is this not Congress acquiescing the power of the purse to the executive? Has this obvious point already been made?
Non-Existent Patricia
@Martin @144: Firstly, my understanding is that UI is a state run and state funded program (except when in extreme cases – and my understanding is that no extension has been passed since the abomination that was Dec 2010). Secondly, yes, theoretically, SS and Medicare are run from separate pools of money from general funds, but in practice this hasn’t been true since at least the last 10 years (lockbox, anyone?) I think my point still stands; the US government will not default on its debt (debt service is less than tax receipts) no matter what Congress does. The talk about raising or not raising the debt limit is just that, talk. The bondholders will get paid, no matter what.
Martin
It’s a joint fed/state program. Payroll tax contributions at both the fed and state level fund the program, and the feds can loan money to the states when states run out.
Well, probably not, actually. The problem with the debt service is that there’s a question of ‘churn’. It’s not that there’s this one giant block of debt like a credit card that we pay interest on. There’s a whole buffet of Treasuries with different maturities, and some of those come due every month. Each month, that’s hundreds of billions of dollars, so while there’s a cost of interest on those treasuries, there’s also the expense of paying back the bondholder on the principal for those that mature. We hit the debt ceiling in May, which means that since then we’ve been paying bills with money that we shouldn’t be paying bills with. By August, my understanding is that we won’t even have the money to reimburse bondholders on the Treasuries that come due – hundreds of billions – because the Treasury won’t have the approval to issue new bonds, and they need to issue new bonds to have enough money to pay back the principal on the old bonds.
Think of it more like selling one house and buying another of equal value (assuming no commissions, etc.). You think of your monthly ‘cost’ as being the interest portion of your mortgage payment that you make each month, and that’s not that much – and that’s the ‘cost’ of debt service. But in the house transaction, how do you buy the new house if you haven’t yet sold your old house unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash? The service (interest) each month is small, but you need that big pile of cash, at least temporarily, in order to churn the asset. People run into that all the time when buying a house, and solve it by taking out a bridge loan. But the feds can’t do that because we hit the debt ceiling back in May. We need to issue new bonds (sell the old house) in order to have the money to pay off the bonds that just matured (buy the new house). But because we’re at the ceiling, we’re not allowed to issue new bonds (sell the old house), and the bondholders don’t just want the interest, they demand the principal as well, which we don’t have.
SS gets implicated in this mess in other ways because the SS trust owns a decent chunk of those bonds. So one solution is to ‘default’ on SS and pay everyone else, but then because SS doesn’t maintain a giant pile of cash (it’s constantly rolling into Treasuries, like doing a rollover CD) and because we just defaulted on SS, and because we can’t borrow, and because tax revenues roll in throughout the year, we don’t have the cash to actually clear the SS checks.
Since May, Geithner has basically been shifting dollars and expenses around, deferring what he can, and borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. By next month, presumably there’s nothing really left to do other than sell off hard assets like (as Bartlet notes) gold reserves, land, etc. or legitimately not pay back bondholders.
Perspecticus
Have just seen a handful of links over at Memeorandum claiming this all was a part of Obama’s hostage deal. There should be no surprise, however. the lack of creativity has always been glaringly obvious. I mean, they haven’t changed their economic tunes through decades of provable failures on every point. Why would they bother to drum up a whole new shtick against Obama when they can simply turn the arguments regarding GOP obstructionism back at the president?