Obama – Then & Now

Obama in 2006

Obama in 2006


Obama today:

President Obama would accept a short-term increase in the federal borrowing cap , rather than one lasting a year or more, a senior White House official said Monday. The statement was an acknowledgment by the administration that it may not be possible to reach a deal on a long-term increase in the debt ceiling before a critical Oct. 17 deadline.

Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, said members of Congress ultimately have the responsibility to decide how often they want to raise the debt ceiling, although he argued that an extended hike is preferable. …

The Treasury says it will run low on cash in as little as 10 days, placing the nation at risk of a historic default. Some Republicans have suggested that if Congress can’t reach an agreement by Oct. 17, they might try to forge a coalition to support an interim measure to increase the $16.7 trillion debt ceiling for as little as six weeks.

Sperling’s comments Monday suggested that the White House would accept such a measure. The statement was notable because administration officials had rejected a short-term debt ceiling increase during a similar impasse in the summer of 2011, when the White House insisted that the debt limit be increased to cover borrowing through 2012.


If you think the national debt is too high now, just wait until Obamacare fully kicks in. Ever seen your electric meter when you have all your appliances running at the same time?

BTW – We passed $16 TRILLION during the 2012 RNC convention last year.


Advertisements

About Myiq2xu™

Peaceful coexistence or mutually assured destruction. Your choice.
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Debt Ceiling, Federal Deficit, National Debt, Obamacare and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Obama – Then & Now

  1. wmcb says:

    I’m tired of this “risk of default” crap that is just parroted and accepted as gospel.

    We are not at risk of default. We can pay the service on the debt, easily. We will have to cut programs to do it, though.

    DEBT is a legal term. You do not owe debt for promised govt programs. My mortgage is a legal DEBT. The promise I made to my kids to take them on vacation is not. Nor is a promise that we’ll be eating yummy shrimp and not cheap hotdogs. Do I really want to keep that promise? Of course I do. But it’s not a debt. I cannot “default” on it. The mortgage and the car payment are debts. The other stuff, however worthy, is not.

    • 1539days says:

      Debt service is around $700 billion. The Republicans could conceivably pass a bill that would budget $700 billion for debt service, then raise the debt limit by that same $700 billion. Then debt would be paid for 12 month, no default required.

      • Constance says:

        I wish they would do that. I think we hit the point where we can’t just keep raising the debt because the sky will fall if we don’t.

    • The Klown says:

      I once told my credit card company that if they didn’t raise my credit limit I was in danger of default.

      They said “Pay up, you deadbeat!”

    • mothy67 says:

      Is Social Security considered a debt? I know entitlement reform is needed but do those who paid into it for 50 plus years have a legal right to those funds? Often hear that it was solvent until some republican or either dipped into the coffers. Don’t know if its true or not. Also does the obamacare ruling by the Supreme Court open up the door to a mandatory privatized social security system?

      • r u reddy says:

        We got Social Security Reform in 1983. That’s what the Reagan Rescue Plan was all about. Our FICA taxes were raised substantially to 6.3(?) percent with the same 6.3(?) paid on our behalf by our employER or by us if we were self-employed. That was to build up a huge trust fund which would be paid back out to us baby boomers when we retired. When we baby boomers all all mainly dead mostly, the trust fund would be paid back out to we who had paid it in. Then SS would be back to “paygo”, same as before.
        That vast surplus is all lent to the General Budget FedGov in return for some kind of special Treasury Instruments. Legally we should be paid back out of that. In fact our Trust Fund Money has been/ will be spent on tax cuts and other things. Our Trust Fund is their Tax Cut and they don’t want to have to pay it back in future with tax re-raises.
        So they want to cut SS so as to withhold our money from us in some
        exquisitely legal way.

        • The Klown says:

          IOW – we loaned the money to ourselves.

        • r u reddy says:

          In a way . . . but that’s not what we were told at the time. We were told were were prepaying double on SS for today in order to get paybacked out of our prepaid trust fund tomorrow. Greenspan was part of the staff designing this particular rescue. I am sure Reagan meant it to be a real rescue, but I believe Greenspan meant for it to to be a “straight-up two-step con” right from the start, to quote Joshua Micah Marshall. The giveaway was when very early in the Bush Junior Administration, when our debt levels had been going down thanks in part to the modest Clinton Tax Increase, Greenspan started lecturing Congress about the dangers of insufficiently large debt, the strangeness that would result from not having to roll over mass quantities of Treasury Instruments, etc. Many lawmakers who were dubious about the Bush Tax Cuts to begin with took on faith that The Maestro told them. So they voted for BushCuts. Our SS money went to fund the BushCuts. So in a sense, “others of us” borrowed if from some of us. Those who got huge taxcuts borrowed it from we who got little taxcuts.
          I would have preferred letting the Bushcuts naturally sunset and go back to the Clinton Rates. Things were not bad during the Clinton Administration. Obama conspired together with Boehner and others to make the BushCuts permanent and covered it up by a tiny token tax “increase” on some “very richest” Americans. Obama’s goal was to keep starving the government of money in order to engineer more debt crises and fiscal cliffs in order to make his Grand Bargain look necessary and unavoidable. I continue to believe that this is what Obama is secretly trying to achieve now, and Boehner and the Catfood Democrats all understand it and want it too, but the TPRepubs are standing on their principles and getting ready to kick the Grand Chessboard over. Obama’s vanity is tied up with ObamaCare and as long as the TP focuses against that, they will stand in the way of the Grand Catfood Bargain. It seems ironic that we should be grateful to the TP for saving SS/Medicare from Boehner, Obama, and the Catfood Democrats. But if it plays out that way, I guess we should be.

        • r u reddy says:

          And there is no way Obama will instruct Lew to NOT declare a default, because Obama wants the default as a credible threat to extort the passage of the Grand Catfood Bargain. Obama would rather see a default in the hopes that this will disorder American finances enough to get yet another bite at the Grand Catfood Apple.

    • angienc says:

      You really have a knack for explaining things in laymen’s terms that are smart & accurate. You laid out the difference between a debt obligation and other non-debt obligations (such as a promise — which may carry a moral or political obligation, but isn’t a debt) very nicely.

      I would only add that in order for an obligation to be a debt, it must be represented by a debt instrument — such as notes, bonds, certificates, mortgages, leases, etc. That is why the whole “risk of default” is such b.s. — the US Government takes in enough taxes every month to service it’s debt (i.e., pay the interest on those obligations represented by debt instruments); there is no risk of default regardless of how many campaign promises go unfulfilled.

      If, in fact, Obama in his pettiness decides to instruct Lew to default on the debt, as he seems to be threatening, that is an impeachable defense under the US Constitution.

  2. helenk3 says:

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58394

    WOW what a true picture of backtrack

    petty and mean spirited and all about him

    • On that link, Helen, was this jewel:

      Update: The government’s already coming out of Obama’s painted corner. They quietly turned the Amber Alert website back on at about 10:45 this morning.

      Are some gov’t types quietly acknowledging the emperor is wacko?

  3. helenk3 says:

    what part of that was then and this is now don’t you people get?

    do you think backtrack has a short attention span problem?

  4. helenk3 says:

    http://liveblog.wtop.com/Event/Tornado_watch_posted_for_DC_metro_area

    a tornado that sweeps DC clean might just be the best thing that could happen to this country

  5. wmcb says:

    Media Matters’ Oliver Willis got logically spanked, and is retreating to snide like they usually do.

  6. wmcb says:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326819-smash-mouth-reid

  7. wmcb says:

    Establishment gotta whine.

  8. The Klown says:

    This should probably be a front-page post but I am still emotionally drained from last night’s Raiders game.

  9. The Klown says:
  10. wmcb says:

    Henry the VIII’s twitter feed is always a laugh:

  11. wmcb says:

    This is disgusting. Threaten to arrest vets, but illegal immigrants get a whole rally on the National Mall.

    • helenk3 says:

      here goes my Irish temper

      National Mall

      off limits to WW2 vets who fought for this country

      yes to illegal aliens who broke the law to sneak into this country

      • helenk3 says:

        from Ace of Spades

        Incredible: National Park Service OKs Open Borders Rally On Supposedly Closed National Mall, Citing “First Amendment Exception”
        —Ace

        Right.

        Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally, confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.

        Oh really? I wonder if this may be because Democrats see political advantage in the rally.

        About 30 members of Congress are expected to attend the rally, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J.

        How crazy I was to suspect that. Oh well, at least it’s not as if Government Workers are deciding whether or not the public can enjoy spaces the public owns according to whether or not Government Workers favor the group seeking access.

        The event is hosted by several immigration activist groups, together with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO.

        Oh. Ohhhh.

        Thanks to Krakatoa.

    • angienc says:

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

  12. Constance says:

    Obama doesn’t have the political skill to negotiate a solution to any of our problems. I think it is about time he call in Bill Clinton to figure out a strategy and make it work. Obama can’t make anything work. He is useless.

  13. helenk3 says:

    http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/10/07/civil-disobedience-starts-as-citizens-storm-barrycades-n1718264/page/full

    WW2 Vets still know how to take an enemy position.

    also for those of you in Las Vegas

    boat parade down strip on Sunday Night people from closed Lake Mead will tow boats along the strip.

    think harry reid will have the guts to show up?

  14. r u reddy says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama, Boehner, and the Catfood Democrat Senators have been secretely choreographing this whole thing in advance. Their goal has been to stealth-cut Social Security and Military Pensions through the underhanded ruse of the chained CPI. The little bit of Boehner I heard on the news this morning sound-bited him as saying we need to solve long-term debt before raising any debt-ceiling. He mentioned not one work of altering Obamacare. That’s because he is trying to swing the discussion around to Obama’s Grand Bargain.
    If the Tea Party Republicans understand that this is the goal of the Treacherous Trio ( Boehner/Obama/Catfood Democrat Senators) all along, and this is their chance to begin the destruction of SS/Medicare/, will they agree to drop any mention of Obamacare in return for getting the cuts to SS/Medicare which Obama and the Catfood Democrats are desperate to give them? Or are they too upset and offended to see the secretly open door that Boehner , Obama, and the Catfood Democrat Senators are desperately waving them to go through?

    • The Klown says:

      Where did you get the idea that the Tea Party wants to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

      • r u reddy says:

        You know . . . you raise a good question. I don’t KNOW that they do, I merely assUME that they do, in part based on Ryan’s past desire to privatise and voucherise Medicare and in part on assuming the Tea Party supporters would like to see SS/Medicare attrited and degraded
        (and hopefully destroyed) just like conservatives such as Norquist and other “starve the beast” conservatives. If I am wrong about that, if in fact the TP people don’t even want to degrade or destroy SS/Medicare; then Obama’s little plan may be doomed from the start.
        If it is indeed the TP people who end up killing the Grand Bargain by their stern and unrelenting focus on Obamacare, then we should be grateful to the TP people for that outcome.

        • The Klown says:

          I don’t KNOW that they do, I merely assUME

          Exactly.

        • r u reddy says:

          I wonder how the “TP” Republican Reps feel about SS/Medicare. Do they and their constituents feel the same way about it? And if so, what way is that?

        • Lulu says:

          I would not consider Ryan a TP member. He is moving on up with the old guard country clubbers with Immigration (open immigration that is) Reform and getting further away from the budget talk. Tea Party are much more populists rather than libertarians. Both Vile Progs and Karl Rove old guard Repub corporatists hate populists. Ted Cruz is a conservative populist which is why he hooked most of the blue dog/moderate (ex-Democratic) populist vote in Texas. Populists are not anti-SSA which is social insurance.

        • r u reddy says:

          If the TP are populists in favor of protecting SSA-social insurance against Obama’s Grand Catfood Bargain then the TP-minded Reps will not take the bait and will stay focused against Obamacare. Which is good. I wonder how Senator Cruz feels about SSA?

        • wmcb says:

          In order to protect SS we are going to have to change it. We have no choice. Sorry, but young people KNOW this, and aren’t going to put up with a ponzi scheme built on thier backs much longer. Structural changes need to be made. SS can either be modified, or come to an abrupt unplanned halt/slashing in the future. Those are our choices.

          The devil is in how to do it. And we cannot even have that debate so long as any and every proposal is met with “You hate grandma and want her to eat catfood.” I didn’t like everything about the Ryan plan. But it’s a starting point, and then you discuss and debate and say, “No, that won’t work but here’s how to change that part to make it fairer, and let’s add this provision…etc etc.”

          LIke I said, Ryan’s plan wasn’t the greatest. But you know what pisses me off MUCH more than Ryan’s inadequate plan? The absolute refusal to even have the debate.

      • Not speaking FOR the TP, but what I see is millions of tax-paying American citizens who:
        #1 believe public benefits should be a crutch, not a lifestyle choice, and
        #2 believe “kicking the can down the road” politicians of both parties should be deemed ineligible for reelection to any public office, ever.

        The rest of it is negotiable.

    • 1539days says:

      Social Security is more or less an indexed payment plan for people who are “retired” at 65 years old. There are different stipulations and people other than the elderly can get payments.

      If you are 62 now and getting Social Security, you have been paying the higher Reagan era tax rates for most of your working life. Social Security is separately accounted for. Borrowing from it means the feds issue bonds to be paid back to SSI. Since many people laid off by King Barry started collecting early, current Social Security income taxes are not keeping up, and we are dipping into the trust fund, or the accumulated surplus of payments.

      The truth is that Social Security is welfare. Workers pay into it, but they don’t get the same amount out of it. It’s like a defined benefit plan (i.e. a pension) except that there is no equity. If you have a 401K and drop dead, your beneficiaries get the rest. If you and your spouse die, the government gets to give your Social Security to someone with more longevity. It is not means tested, the wealthy only have to pay Social Security taxes up to the first $109,000 of their income and it punishes those who die early.

    • wmcb says:

      And BTW, you know who the “conservatives” are re: SS? Those who want to “protect” it by sticking their heads in the sand and reflexively saying “NONONO, we’ve always had this, and it shall ever be, you cannot touch it!” about a program that is going slowly bankrupt.

      You want some truly reactionary conservatism? That’s it, right there.

  15. helenk3 says:

    http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/10/million-vet-march-on-memorials-october-13-update-on-trucker-ride-for-constitution/

    October 11 to October 13 will be a busy weekend in DC.
    truckers and vets are coming on down

  16. helenk3 says:

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/brand-new-military-planes-headed-for-boneyard/

    want to buy a military cargo plane? low milage, little usage, like new and some are new

    • With the increase in air freight from China to North American, look for a Chinese Air Freight hauler to snap these up when they become officially surplus.
      Those hourly “operating costs” are laughingly bogus public employee costs, not real world. (Oh, my side hurts from laughing so hard).

  17. The Klown says:
  18. The Klown says:
  19. westcoaster says:

    Kudlow thinks Obama wants to create a massive sell-off in stocks and bonds:
    http://www.moneynews.com/newswidget/obama-markets-economy-government-shutdown/2013/10/05/id/529444

  20. The Klown says:
  21. DeniseVB says:

    My rant-O-blog post tonight. Via WSJ, but I had to throw in my 2 cents….

  22. helenk3 says:

    just got my mail and there is a letter from nancy pelosi on women’s issues. Did not realise it was in the bunch or I would have dumped it outside.
    OMG I feel like I let cockroaches in my house

  23. The Klown says:

    This is about the hottest topic on Twitter today:

    Captain Shep Smith on the bridge of the USS Enterprise

  24. helenk3 says:

    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2013/10/obama-wont-release-obamacare-enrollment.html

    backtrack bunch will not release obamacare enrollment numbers until November

  25. The Klown says:

    Apparently Prince Valiant is the new Jeopardy champion today.

    • DandyTIger says:

      Hard to say. Sounds like a pile of crap to me. And if it’s done badly, then it won’t scale well either. Which means they’d have to do some big fixing or make a way bigger server farm than they should have to. But these analysts may not know what they’re talking about too.

Comments are closed.