Better all the time

[ugonow]

GOP Rep. Rokita Refuses To Raise The Debt Ceiling Even If It Means ‘The Economy Might Get Worse’
By Tanya Somanader on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm


Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita (R)
Despite numerous warnings from three major credit agencies, economists, businesses, members of their own party, and general common sense, the Republican “Hell No” caucus remains ever vigilant in ignoring the economic disaster that will follow a failure to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2. While some Republicans have offered simply ludicrous reasons to paint the deadline as arbitrary, an increasing number are pushing the notion that there’s no danger at all in defaulting on our debt.

Today on ABC’s Top Line, Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) went one step further and threw away the word “default” altogether. While he views Aug. 2 as an “important date,” he refuses to “take the premise that we’re going to default on our obligations.” Believing “default” isn’t even the right word to use to describe the economic consequences, Rokita slammed those who would avoid default as “piggish” and “un-American” for worrying about “my own little program or my own little economy.” Rokita then declared defiantly that he’s willing to vote down a debt ceiling raise even if it means “the economy might get worse”:

ROKITA: We’ll learn to live within our means right now, in the here and now. And this might force that issue even if the economy does or the stock market does go down, the economy might get worse. The economy is terrible it’s been terrible for years now, and the reason it’s bad is not because of a debt-ceiling vote. The reason it’s bad is because we have people who believe that by making government bigger by keeping people on unemployment checks and on welfare we’re going to dig us out of this mess. " ---- Lets hear it for keeping people unemployed!!!

[djAdvocate]

jesus. intentionally obscuring the fact that this decision might conceivably cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is not exactly a service to his constituency.

[ugonow]

Rokita slammed those who would avoid default as “piggish” and “un-American” for worrying about “my own little program or my own little economy.”

I hope they keep a record of his words if it happens. If it is unAmerican to worry about the economy,we are in trouble... and the biggest worry about handouts I see is for subsidies and loopholes.

[handyman2]

I have heard several economists say that even without raising the debt ceiling we will not default. there are revenues to pay our interest payments. What will hurt is that we will have to live with the means we have and that is not a bad thing.
The time is coming where the shell game will stop. China is having problems, Europe also, so at what point is there where there are no money in these other countries to lend us? they have real problems of their own. Time to get serious. We are overspent and so are they.

[sesfw]

"everyone" keeps saying the US will default. To whom? How? What is REALLY going to happen?

Will the members of congress give up their paychecks like 'they' are asking the rest of us to do?

If the US doesn't learn to live within its' means .... then congress should be the first to be let go (fired).

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

It's the old question of how best to remove a bandaid. This is the "rip it off" approach. A handful of people in Congress are willing to admit that the United States is moving full steam ahead to an inevitable default, and they're willing to eat it now rather than go the Obama, Geithner, Bernanke use hyper-inflation and kick the can down the road until full blown collapse method.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 18, 2011 16:28:32 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Rokita slammed those who would avoid default as “piggish” and “un-American” for worrying about “my own little program or my own little economy.”

I hope they keep a record of his words if it happens. If it is unAmerican to worry about the economy,we are in trouble... and the biggest worry about handouts I see is for subsidies and loopholes.

...I find this interesting... those of us who adamantly oppose entitlement spending because "we worry about the economy" are often called "unAmerican" and "unsympathetic" to our fellow Americans... we can't win for losing, huh?

[chiver78]

Jul 18, 2011 20:39:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's the old question of how best to remove a bandaid. This is the "rip it off" approach. A handful of people in Congress are willing to admit that the United States is moving full steam ahead to an inevitable default, and they're willing to eat it now rather than go the Obama, Geithner, Bernanke use hyper-inflation and kick the can down the road until full blown collapse method.

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 18, 2011 20:39:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's the old question of how best to remove a bandaid. This is the "rip it off" approach. A handful of people in Congress are willing to admit that the United States is moving full steam ahead to an inevitable default, and they're willing to eat it now rather than go the Obama, Geithner, Bernanke use hyper-inflation and kick the can down the road until full blown collapse method.

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

...I have to disagree with you here... "it all started" long before 2000...

[Deleted]

I hope that either President Obama (who caused this problem in the first place) agrees to cut spending or we DO DEFAULT. I believe that the Republicans are doing the right thing & will be doing the right thing if they force a default. I actually think that there will be a default because I believe that President Obama will see this as a way to blame the Republicans & hopefully help him get re-elected. His personal gain, agenda of socialist programs, & him being re-elected certainly rank higher to him than the people of the U.S.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 18, 2011 22:37:06 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

I hope that either President Obama (who caused this problem in the first place) agrees to cut spending or we DO DEFAULT. I believe that the Republicans are doing the right thing & will be doing the right thing if they force a default. I actually think that there will be a default because I believe that President Obama will see this as a way to blame the Republicans & hopefully help him get re-elected. His personal gain, agenda of socialist programs, & him being re-elected certainly rank higher to him than the people of the U.S.

...I have to disagree with you here... POTUS didn't "cause this problem in the first place"... he just helped a whole lot...

[ugonow]

JMO, but this is not the time for tough guy go big or go home tatics.Our economy is fragile. In investing ,the long term invester uses a different approach than the short term invester.The short term investor just chases the high numbers for a quick more than likely,unsustainable high figure.The long term investor takes a more methodacal approach,using patience,and different vehicles,and diversifying. I think a slash and burn,cut anything that moves other than loopholes and subsidies approach could bring trouble down the line and would not be realistic in the long term. It will bring a quick attractive number to show,though. Most economists agreed going in that a mix of spending cuts and revenue increases was the best long term solution.I tend to agree......,but add,and discipline,another long term investor tatic....

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 18, 2011 20:39:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

It's the old question of how best to remove a bandaid. This is the "rip it off" approach. A handful of people in Congress are willing to admit that the United States is moving full steam ahead to an inevitable default, and they're willing to eat it now rather than go the Obama, Geithner, Bernanke use hyper-inflation and kick the can down the road until full blown collapse method.

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

Tough shit. If he doesn't want the job, and everything that comes with it- he can resign. Everyone that runs for the job knows, or should know the deal.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jul 18, 2011 21:27:23 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

...I have to disagree with you here... "it all started" long before 2000...

True, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a President that, with the help of the Democrat controlled House, and Democrat controlled Senate that has spent more than all previous governments from George Washington to George W. Bush...COMBINED.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this President has signed into law monthly deficits that rival the largest monthly deficits-- case in point, February 2011 just THIS YEAR Obama's deficit was $233 billion which is larger than the annual deficit under Bush for all of 2007.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Obama, right now, at this moment is proposing to borrow (BORROW, not spend- borrow) another $1.67 trillion THIS fiscal year.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that Obama is currently promising to cut $400 billion a year ($4 trillion over 10 years) from the budget, but the very same Obama, earlier this year, balked at cutting $38 billion.

The debt and deficit are not Obama's fault alone, but default and economic collapse that are inevitable if we continue on Obama's rapid self-destruct course can be laid squarely at the feet of Obama.

[chiver78]

Jul 19, 2011 8:46:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

Tough shit. If he doesn't want the job, and everything that comes with it- he can resign. Everyone that runs for the job knows, or should know the deal.

where did I say he couldn't deal with it? I'm just lamenting the fact that spin artists will paint this a hell of a lot differently from how it actually happened.

[privateinvestor]

GOP Rep. Rokita Refuses To Raise The Debt Ceiling Even If It Means ‘The Economy Might Get Worse’
By Tanya Somanader on Jul 18, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Just about all of the Tea Party Congressional Caucus agree to NOT raise the Debt Ceiling unless drastic cuts are included..so it will be interesting to see if the McConnell "Hail Mary" passes or not in a few days..

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2011 19:31:57 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

I have heard several economists say that even without raising the debt ceiling we will not default. there are revenues to pay our interest payments.

that doesn't make much sense to me. if you have to pay the military, or make social security payments, do you really suggest that we should pay interest in the debt first?

it really depends on how payables come in. that is what keeps businesses and governments from going into default. is it POSSIBLE that the revenues would come in just right to prevent default? SURE. is it likely, given that we are currently borrowing about 40% of every dollar spent? not very.

but furthermore, and everyone should be aware of this, cutting expenses 40% in a weak recovery will end that recovery. i hope everyone is cool with that. i know the GOP is, because it improves their chances in 2012. so long as the Democrats can't blame it on them, because of the fiasco that is just about to unfold. which they can't, if Obama is the one telling them to do it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 18, 2011 21:27:23 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

...I have to disagree with you here... "it all started" long before 2000...

that is true, but all through the 90's the situation got BETTER, not worse.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 19, 2011 8:46:25 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:23:44 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

the sad part is that in this country (and media world) of spin, it will fall on the current administration alone as the failure. I will not say that the current administration is without blame, but it all started during the prior 8 years. why did they all wait until now to rip off the band-aid, as sesfw so astutely describes?

Tough shit. If he doesn't want the job, and everything that comes with it- he can resign. Everyone that runs for the job knows, or should know the deal.

he has stated several times that he doesn't care about re-election. there is no way in hell he is going to quit.

[chiver78]

Jul 19, 2011 9:57:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:27:23 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I have to disagree with you here... "it all started" long before 2000...

that is true, but all through the 90's the situation got BETTER, not worse.

fair enough - in my defense though, the first election I was old enough to vote in was '96.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 19, 2011 8:55:22 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jul 18, 2011 21:27:23 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...I have to disagree with you here... "it all started" long before 2000...

True, but let's not lose sight of the fact that this is a President that, with the help of the Democrat controlled House, and Democrat controlled Senate that has spent more than all previous governments from George Washington to George W. Bush...COMBINED.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

okay, Paul. your time on the Hyperbole box has ended. this is a claim that either Bachmann or Palin made in the last six months, and it is absolute horseshit. even if you fail to adjust for inflation, it isn't true.

Bush averaged $2.5B/yr in office in his 8 years, that is over $20T spent.
Obama thusfar is averaging about $3.5T for his two budgets, or $7T. there is no way that he is going to spend in 4 years what Bush did in 8, let alone what America did in 225.

[djAdvocate]

The debt and deficit are not Obama's fault alone, but default and economic collapse that are inevitable if we continue on Obama's rapid self-destruct course can be laid squarely at the feet of Obama.

i keep hearing this imminent collapse stuff. i don't know where it is coming from.

if you look at the standards in RE, they will generally let you borrow to the point that 40% of your net income goes to mortgage. that is a liberal standard. a more conservative one is 20%.

our interest payments are currently running about 6% we are nowhere near any sort of danger in terms of borrowing.

i think a 10 year plan, like the one recently proposed by the GOP is realistic. it would leave us with close to $20T in debt, which for an economy as large as ours, would be manageable.

that would be a good goal to lay out, and if we manage it, perhaps we should cap the debt to force balanced budgets.

[bubblyandblue]

What I worry about, if we don't raise the debt limit, is that any setback the US government will have in regards to 'what it will cost' will be just a fraction of what the private sector will bear. That means main street will be decimated while, wall street and/or/together with the governmental side will only feel a slight bump. - The stock Market may fall but that really is not part of our productive economy - just a gambling house with house rules and the house never loses.

[privateinvestor]

Split-Personality Disorder
The clash over the debt has exposed the gulf between GOP purists and pragmatists.
by Howard KurtzJuly 17, 2011
Susan Walsh / AP
From right to left, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif., and House Speaker John Boehner.

However the debt-ceiling standoff is ultimately resolved, the trench warfare between House Republicans and the Democratic president has shown the country that the GOP is caught between its antigovernment fervor and the need to keep the lights on.

The populist Tea Party movement that helped the Republicans capture the House last year is fueled by a loathing for government and a refusal to support a deal with Democrats offering what once would have been unthinkable budget cuts. Republicans have even turned on their own, treating the party stalwart Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell like an ideological traitor for proposing a last-ditch plan to allow President Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling rather than watch the federal government slide into default.

“McConnell needs to be sent home,” says Mark Meckler, cofounder of Tea Party Patriots. “It’s an embarrassment. It’s an abdication of governing responsibility.” He is just as dismissive of such House GOP leaders as Speaker John Boehner for their willingness to compromise: “These guys are out of touch with reality.”

But compromise is a Washington reality, which is why McConnell first broached his plan with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who promised not to trash it. More telling, perhaps, was his call to Grover Norquist, the conservative crusader who has gotten most Republican members of Congress to sign a no-new-taxes pledge. “I think it makes sense,” he told the senator. Norquist tells NEWSWEEK he would rather have Obama “own the whole thing” than see Republicans accept “a phony budget deal that looked like you were cutting spending.”

What remains of the party’s pragmatic wing is nervous. John McCain says independent voters “are now up for grabs,” and that “too many new Republicans are already committed to not raising the debt ceiling no matter what.” And how times have changed: Bruce Bartlett, a onetime aide to Ronald Reagan, says that “Reagan couldn’t get elected dogcatcher these days. He raised taxes at least 11 times. Back then you had responsible adults in the Republican Party who put country over partisanship.”

Yet much of the GOP’s energy now comes from the Tea Party crowd that adores insurgent presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who opposes raising the debt ceiling. Bachmann rejects tax hikes in any form and accuses the White House of hyping the dangers of default if no budget deal is reached by the Aug. 2 deadline. Such talk prompts Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen to accuse some Republicans of acting “like cult members.”

While detractors accuse the GOP of recklessness, the party’s hard-liners say they are keeping a campaign promise to block job-killing taxes. But the brinksmanship could undermine the party’s electoral self-interest. It was precisely that concern that led McConnell to craft his fallback plan. Already under pressure from business groups to make a deal on the debt, McConnell privately concluded that every group—seniors, veterans, military families—would side with Obama if a default tanked the economy. “Republicans would get reamed,” a GOP official says. “The default crowd doesn’t get that.”

The upshot is that Republicans will head into 2012 with their presidential candidates in the mold of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who has become the face of the negotiations by denouncing every plan with a whiff of revenue hikes, including one backed by Boehner, Cantor’s ostensible boss. Obama, meanwhile, will portray the party as risking economic chaos to protect the rich.

The schism in the GOP is mirrored by divisions in the Tea Party movement. Matt Kibbe, president of Freedom Works, wonders why Republicans refuse to take “yes” for an answer. “When Obama is talking about trillions of dollars in spending cuts,” Kibbe says, “we’ve changed the conversation.”

And that, says historian Richard Norton Smith, underlines the paradox of today’s Republican Party: “When you think how far things have moved in the last six months, they won. Why can’t they accept that fact? Purity is fine in theory, but they seem wedded to the impossible.”

[Deleted]

that doesn't make much sense to me. if you have to pay the military, or make social security payments, do you really suggest that we should pay interest in the debt first?

No, the FIRST THING you do is stop spending. The 2nd thing you do is try to cut back on the spending you have already approved. Then you sit down & do a budget with meaningful cuts. Cut's that may incluse 5 million here or there AFTER you have address the big costs that are dragging our country into debt hell. President Obama has done NONE OF THAT. He is doing the normal liberal thing. Start programs (spend money) & hope that you can borrow enough to keep everything a float until the other party wins & has to deal with it. (& if they can't cause you spent so much....then blame them for it).

[Deleted]

Here's an interesting take on those wonderful "cuts" that President Obama picked to show that he "cares" about the economy & the people of the U.S. (Oh & they were picked because he figured that Republicans would look bad fighting him on this).

Remember the Judgment Day style theatrics that surrounded the threat of a government shutdown back in April? That sliced $350 million from this year’s budget. That’s about as much as we borrow in two hours. Now, they’re at it again in Congress, but this time they’re talking about cutting $2 billion from this year’s budget. We’ll cover that in 11 hours time. Not that the “future budget cuts” aren’t appreciated, if they ever come, but the extraordinary amounts we’re borrowing and the miniscule amounts we’re able to cut in the here and now don’t suggest we’re even remotely serious about dealing with this issue yet.

[bubblyandblue]

You need to raise revenue and you need to raise it from the vampire squid who have shown their intention of sucking the marrow out of wealth creation in this economy by speculative gambits - gambling - raise taxes to a rational level - raise taxes on speculative incomes to new heights - Everyone talks about raising taxes on corporations and the rich - you need to identify those corporations that play the non-wealth producing gambling games, cut out special privalege (tax loopholes) and tax the crap out of it. Corporations or the rich that gain their fourtunes by playing the market (thats what brought our economy and revenue down) ought to be taxed with prejudice. Corporations that contribute to the wealth of THIS nation should be taxed rationaly. And no, do not give away a tax break for repatriation of corporate money overseas - demand it back into our country and tax it for revenue.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 19, 2011 10:09:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

The debt and deficit are not Obama's fault alone, but default and economic collapse that are inevitable if we continue on Obama's rapid self-destruct course can be laid squarely at the feet of Obama.

i keep hearing this imminent collapse stuff. i don't know where it is coming from.

if you look at the standards in RE, they will generally let you borrow to the point that 40% of your net income goes to mortgage. that is a liberal standard. a more conservative one is 20%.

our interest payments are currently running about 6% we are nowhere near any sort of danger in terms of borrowing.

i think a 10 year plan, like the one recently proposed by the GOP is realistic. it would leave us with close to $20T in debt, which for an economy as large as ours, would be manageable.

that would be a good goal to lay out, and if we manage it, perhaps we should cap the debt to force balanced budgets.

...idk if I understand this... you post that "perhaps we should cap the debt to force balanced budgets," but that is exactly what this whole debt ceiling discussion is all about... correct?

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 19, 2011 11:43:28 GMT -5 @bubblyandblue said:

You need to raise revenue and you need to raise it from the vampire squid who have shown their intention of sucking the marrow out of wealth creation in this economy by speculative gambits - gambling - raise taxes to a rational level - raise taxes on speculative incomes to new heights - Everyone talks about raising taxes on corporations and the rich - you need to identify those corporations that play the non-wealth producing gambling games, cut out special privalege (tax loopholes) and tax the crap out of it. Corporations or the rich that gain their fourtunes by playing the market (thats what brought our economy and revenue down) ought to be taxed with prejudice. Corporations that contribute to the wealth of THIS nation should be taxed rationaly. And no, do not give away a tax break for repatriation of corporate money overseas - demand it back into our country and tax it for revenue.

...do you think the tax on speculators' income would close the gap? what %?