Obama Warns Debt Ceiling Fight Could Be 'Catastrop

[Value Buy]

The "real catastrophe" is the President does not care about the deficit.
The insanity of deficit budgets have to stop now.

[grits]

Kick the can down the road, and make someone else be called the worst president ever. Whether we like it or not, entitlements are going to have to be curbed. People are going to have to start limiting how many children they produce, and families will have to help take care of their elderly relatives. My family has done it for generations. It is something more people need to do. It isn't always convenient. A lot of the time, it is everything but fun. Some of those relatives are beyond a pain. Still, it is the right thing to do.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 13:44:26 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The "real catastrophe" is the President does not care about the deficit.

i don't think that is a fair characterization. i think it would be fair to say that he doesn't care about it as much as say....economic growth, social welfare, and jobs. it would rank fourth on that list for him.

i know that most people who think about the deficit tend to think about it in the abstract. when forced to make the hard choices to balance the budget, most people are really not up to that task. but it is fun to pretend that the inability to make those choices is the same thing as not caring about the problem, isn't it?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 13:48:52 GMT -5 grits said:

Kick the can down the road, and make someone else be called the worst president ever.

making tough choices doesn't get you called the worst president ever. Bush kicked virtually every problem down the road. two wars started, the economy shedding 500k jobs per month. stock market in a death spiral. government spending going up 10%. derivatives nightmare. NONE of those problems were solved under Bush or by Bush, and for that reason, he will fall to the bottom quintile in terms of presidents, and possibly the bottom decile. i don't expect Obama to share that same realm, but it is always possible. he has four more years to fuck it up, after all.

[grits]

I did not name a specific president. So cool your jets. The president can make requests of Congress, and work with them on a budget but only Congress can control appropriations. The problem is that nobody wants to cut spending. Spending buys you, and your party votes. They've been kicking this can down the road for over 40 years. The time has come that we can no longer kick it down the road. The United States is acting like a certain poster that people on here love to flame.

[grits]

Personally, I have long advocated programs that began under the Roosevelt administration. We simply cannot cut people off without training. Bring back the WPA, and CCC to compensate states, and cities for the spending cuts that will affect their revenue.
A small community here has a great program for people who commit misdemeanors. If you cannot pay your fine, you have to work it off doing city service. They sure get a lot of trash removed from the roadside and ditches for free. One woman worked super hard at working her service off in a matter of days. The mosquitoes ate her alive.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 13, 2013 13:58:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 13, 2013 13:48:52 GMT -5 grits said:

Kick the can down the road, and make someone else be called the worst president ever.

making tough choices doesn't get you called the worst president ever. Bush kicked virtually every problem down the road. two wars started, the economy shedding 500k jobs per month. stock market in a death spiral. government spending going up 10%. derivatives nightmare. NONE of those problems were solved under Bush or by Bush, and for that reason, he will fall to the bottom quintile in terms of presidents, and possibly the bottom decile. i don't expect Obama to share that same realm, but it is always possible. he has four more years to fuck it up, after all.

And there is the democratic side of you coming out...."it's all Bush's fault." Problems have been kicked down the road long before Bush came into office and being President at a time when so many economic bubbles burst (which helped cause an economic boom before bursting) also don't make you a horrible President. I know people want to pretend Bush came into office with a booming economy and no spending issues, but it isn't reality. Bush made a lot of bad decisions IMO, so I'm not saying he was the greatest President ever...but the hatred thrown at him by many people is unwarranted, especially since so many of those same people are completely fine with President Obama continuing many of those same policies even though he blasted them before being elected.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2013 15:21:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 13, 2013 13:58:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

making tough choices doesn't get you called the worst president ever. Bush kicked virtually every problem down the road. two wars started, the economy shedding 500k jobs per month. stock market in a death spiral. government spending going up 10%. derivatives nightmare. NONE of those problems were solved under Bush or by Bush, and for that reason, he will fall to the bottom quintile in terms of presidents, and possibly the bottom decile. i don't expect Obama to share that same realm, but it is always possible. he has four more years to fuck it up, after all.

And there is the democratic side of you coming out...."it's all Bush's fault." Problems have been kicked down the road long before Buch came into office and being President at a time when so many economic bubbles burst (which helped cause an economic boom before bursting) also don't make you a horrible President. I know people want to pretend Bush came into office with a booming economy and no spending issues, but it isn't reality. Bush made a lot of bad decisions IMO, so I'm not saying he was the greatest President ever...but the hatred thrown at him by many people is unwarranted, especially since so many of those same people are completely fine with President Obama continuing many of those same policies even though he blasted them before being elected.

P I,

I would like to add, Bush made a few bad choice in policy wise. Just like all of his processor. But also, he kept us safe after Sept. 11. People has a tendency to have very short term memory these days....And I do still clearly remember, how terrifying that was. Least, I would like to give him a credit for that. What I am talking about is end result.

And I do agree with you in many front, there is not much difference in Bush or Obama's policy.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2013 13:55:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 13, 2013 13:44:26 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The "real catastrophe" is the President does not care about the deficit.

i don't think that is a fair characterization. i think it would be fair to say that he doesn't care about it as much as say....economic growth, social welfare, and jobs. it would rank fourth on that list for him.

i know that most people who think about the deficit tend to think about it in the abstract. when forced to make the hard choices to balance the budget, most people are really not up to that task. but it is fun to pretend that the inability to make those choices is the same thing as not caring about the problem, isn't it?

djp,

Making a hard choice is his job, that is what real leader supposed to do. Sad to say, not many of them lately. But he asked for that job.If you like to have a power of Presidency, you have to able to make hard decision for good of the country.

Having long term view is very wise thing to do. Not just immediate fix.

[grits]

If you let the country go over a fiscal cliff, there will be no money for social welfare.

[Deleted]

Jan 13, 2013 18:52:52 GMT -5 grits said:

If you let the country go over a fiscal cliff, there will be no money for social welfare.

grits,

That is not a wise choice in my book. What I saying is all these so called elected politician as of voice of the people. Rack of courage to do the right thing as country as whole.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 15:21:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 13, 2013 13:58:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

making tough choices doesn't get you called the worst president ever. Bush kicked virtually every problem down the road. two wars started, the economy shedding 500k jobs per month. stock market in a death spiral. government spending going up 10%. derivatives nightmare. NONE of those problems were solved under Bush or by Bush, and for that reason, he will fall to the bottom quintile in terms of presidents, and possibly the bottom decile. i don't expect Obama to share that same realm, but it is always possible. he has four more years to fuck it up, after all.

And there is the democratic side of you coming out..."it's all Bush's fault."

you are not reading very carefully. i never said that Bush CAUSED all of those problems, i only said that he didn't solve them. do you understand the difference?

though clearly he DID cause two of those problems, for the record. just not all.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 18:52:52 GMT -5 grits said:

If you let the country go over a fiscal cliff, there will be no money for social welfare.

rubbish.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 16:41:05 GMT -5 @funsnowbird said:

Jan 13, 2013 15:21:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

And there is the democratic side of you coming out...."it's all Bush's fault." Problems have been kicked down the road long before Buch came into office and being President at a time when so many economic bubbles burst (which helped cause an economic boom before bursting) also don't make you a horrible President. I know people want to pretend Bush came into office with a booming economy and no spending issues, but it isn't reality. Bush made a lot of bad decisions IMO, so I'm not saying he was the greatest President ever...but the hatred thrown at him by many people is unwarranted, especially since so many of those same people are completely fine with President Obama continuing many of those same policies even though he blasted them before being elected.

P I,

I would like to add, Bush made a few bad choice in policy wise. Just like all of his processor. But also, he kept us safe after Sept. 11.

but he didn't keep us safe prior to 911, did he?

i don't really buy that argument, by the way- so i am mostly being a wiseass. i would say that we are way less safe as a result of Bush than we were immediately after 911.

[grits]

Jan 13, 2013 21:20:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 13, 2013 18:52:52 GMT -5 grits said:

If you let the country go over a fiscal cliff, there will be no money for social welfare.

rubbish.

I think you are delusional. If the nation goes broke, it cannot borrow money at reasonable rates. We won't be able to afford a lot of the entitlements. The government will have to nationalize a lot of personal wealth, and our freedoms will be reduced.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 13, 2013 21:26:04 GMT -5 grits said:

Jan 13, 2013 21:20:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

rubbish.

I think you are delusional.

well, i am not. i can assure you that i am as sane as any person on this board.

If the nation goes broke, it cannot borrow money at reasonable rates.

red herring. your statement didn't state or imply that the country is going broke. going over the fiscal cliff would actually make us MORE SOLVENT.

We won't be able to afford a lot of the entitlements.

you didn't say "a lot" in the original statement. you said "no money", implying NO entitlements.....or anything else for that matter.

The government will have to nationalize a lot of personal wealth, and our freedoms will be reduced.

none of this stuff is ever going to happen, imo. but if it does, and you bet that way, you are going to be the richest guy on the pile of smouldering remains. i hope you believe me when i say i really do wish you the best of luck with that. but my money is on the other end of that bet.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 13, 2013 16:41:05 GMT -5 @funsnowbird said:

Jan 13, 2013 15:21:49 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

And there is the democratic side of you coming out...."it's all Bush's fault." Problems have been kicked down the road long before Buch came into office and being President at a time when so many economic bubbles burst (which helped cause an economic boom before bursting) also don't make you a horrible President. I know people want to pretend Bush came into office with a booming economy and no spending issues, but it isn't reality. Bush made a lot of bad decisions IMO, so I'm not saying he was the greatest President ever...but the hatred thrown at him by many people is unwarranted, especially since so many of those same people are completely fine with President Obama continuing many of those same policies even though he blasted them before being elected.

P I,

I would like to add, Bush made a few bad choice in policy wise. Just like all of his processor. But also, he kept us safe after Sept. 11. People has a tendency to have very short term memory these days....And I do still clearly remember, how terrifying that was. Least, I would like to give him a credit for that. What I am talking about is end result.

And I do agree with you in many front, there is not much difference in Bush or Obama's policy.

The Patriot Act was a knee jerk reaction, not funding the wars was a mistake, and growing the government to the extent he did was also a mistake.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 13, 2013 21:22:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 13, 2013 16:41:05 GMT -5 @funsnowbird said:

P I,

I would like to add, Bush made a few bad choice in policy wise. Just like all of his processor. But also, he kept us safe after Sept. 11.

but he didn't keep us safe prior to 911, did he?

i don't really buy that argument, by the way- so i am mostly being a wiseass. i would say that we are way less safe as a result of Bush than we were immediately after 911.

I'll disagree with you here....the only thing 9/11 did was make people more aware of some of the issues which were around long before 9/11 actually happened. Just because people are more aware doesn't make people less safe, it just means people notice it more.

[Deleted]

Good morning to all.

I think, this opinion piece is worth it to add on the thread.

After reading this more fight is coming between the two party.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-the-lowdown-on-lew/2013/01/13/1cb7acd4-5c29-11e2-9fa9-
5fbdc9530eb9_print.html


This is a very important issues in my book.

Obama’s Cabinet of yes men The Post’s view: Obama’s Cabinet has a worrisome similarity


In selecting Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, to replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, President Obama has sent some not-so-subtle messages: The Treasury’s autonomy will be curbed; the president doesn’t much fear another financial crisis (otherwise, his nominee might have more financial-market experience); and the president isn’t conciliating his Republican and business critics (otherwise, his nominee would be less partisan).

In many ways, the choice of Lew makes perfect sense. Hard bargaining over the $3.5 trillion federal budget looms, as Congress grapples with raising the debt ceiling and trying to avoid automatic spending cuts (a.k.a. the “sequester”). Few people can match Lew’s grasp of the budget. He headed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in both the Clinton and Obama administrations and is said to have an encyclopedic recall of budget numbers and program details. Having worked for Democratic politicians as far back as House Speaker Tip O’Neill, he is also a fierce defender of liberal goals — notably, protecting Social Security benefits.

The job of Treasury secretary has a split and contradictory personality. The secretary is usually the president’s chief economic adviser while representing the views and interests of the business and financial community inside the administration. Lew qualifies for the first job, and Obama doesn’t seem to care much about the second. Lew — a graduate of Harvard (1978) and Georgetown Law School (1983) — had a brief stint as a Citigroup executive from 2006 to 2009, reports the Wall Street Journal. He also was the chief operating officer of New York University (2001-06) and practiced law (1987-91).

“Obama wants somebody close to him who he trusts in these very tough budget negotiations,” says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist of IHS Global Insight, a consulting firm. “I understand the choice, though I’m not sure I agree with it.” By contrast, Geithner enjoys tremendous “credibility” in the financial community because his long government career was spent on financial problems, says Behravesh.

Lew once had a reputation as a technocrat who bridged partisan differences. But this image has faded as he’s risen to positions of greater responsibility. In “The Price of Politics,” his book about the 2011 budget negotiations, journalist Bob Woodward reports that Republicans felt that Lew impeded success. Here’s Woodward’s version of one meeting between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner:

“And Mr. President, the speaker added, please don’t send Jack Lew. The budget director talked too much, was uncompromising, and Boehner’s staff did not believe he could get to yes.

“In an interview a year later, Boehner still had strong feelings about Lew. ‘Jack Lew said no 999,000 times out of a million,’ Boehner said, chuckling. Then he corrected himself, ‘999,999. It was unbelievable. At one point I told the president, keep him out of here. I don’t need somebody who just knows how to say no.’ ”

(Woodward then reports that Lew found Boehner “impatient with details.”)

Broadly, any Treasury secretary now faces three big questions.

First: How, if at all, can the anemic economic recovery be improved? In the first three years of this recovery — which officially began in mid-2009 — the economy has expanded at an average annual rate of 2 percent, less than half the 4.6 percent average for the 10 other recoveries since 1949. Many economists predict more sluggishness. Behravesh forecasts 1.7 percent growth in 2013, with today’s 7.8 unemployment rate dropping to only 7.5 percent by year-end.

Second: How much and how fast should budget deficits be cut? From 2009 to 2012, the federal debt increased by $5 trillion; on the present path, it will continue growing as a share of the economy. Many economists warn that this could someday trigger a financial crisis, as fewer lenders buy U.S. debt. But many of the same economists fear that abrupt deficit declines — from tax increases and spending cuts — would cause a new recession. That’s what the “fiscal cliff” involved.

Third: Can the global economy avoid self-destructive economic nationalism? Economist Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute warns of currency wars, as countries let exchange rates depreciate to gain competitive advantage in export markets. This has already happened; if it gets worse, protectionism could obstruct trade flows.

These are thorny issues; Lew’s possible responses are unclear. One constructive step would be to start cleansing Washington’s poisonous political climate. This corrodes confidence and weakens the economy by undermining the willingness to spend and invest by households and businesses.

The question about Lew is whether he encourages cooperation and bolsters confidence — or becomes an instrument of conflict. Obama’s anti-business attitudes are politically convenient but economically destructive. As Behravesh puts it: “Who do they [administration officials] think creates jobs? It’s puzzling to me that, when they want jobs, they bad-mouth the private sector. It doesn’t compute.”

[Value Buy]

Well, the President is proving elections have consequences.
He is having his last press conference of his first term, and "it's all the Republican's fault" because they won't raise the debt ceiling.....

Shut the government down.
I wonder if this guy ever atteneded the econ 101 class in college?
I wish he would release his grade on at least this one class.
Probably took it on the pass/fail system, and failed.

[grits]

The USA has financial obligations totaling around 60 trillion dollars. There is no way we are going to be able to pay out all the benefits, medical care, welfare, debt payments, and still keep on trucking like we are now. We have to start making cuts. Stop being the police force of the world. We have to stop giving healthy people a free ride just because they pop out a baby. Stop giving drug addicts and drunks a check claiming it is an illness, and a disability. We'll have to go back to pre-New Deal days, and locals take care of themselves.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 14, 2013 3:12:27 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 13, 2013 21:22:43 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but he didn't keep us safe prior to 911, did he?

i don't really buy that argument, by the way- so i am mostly being a wiseass. i would say that we are way less safe as a result of Bush than we were immediately after 911.

I'll disagree with you here....the only thing 9/11 did was make people more aware of some of the issues which were around long before 9/11 actually happened. Just because people are more aware doesn't make people less safe, it just means people notice it more.

huh? that doesn't even make any sense.

no, what i meant was bombing the shit out of an innocent nation made us look like the bad guys in the Arab world, PI. in other words, it made AQ's actions look JUSTIFIED. that made us LESS SAFE, imo. THAT is what i was saying.

"public awareness" did us no f-ing good. NONE. that is because the way this crisis was explained away did not actually address the problem at all.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 14, 2013 12:10:51 GMT -5 grits said:

The USA has financial obligations totaling around 60 trillion dollars.

rubbish. our current payables + long term debt are about 1/3 of that. nothing else counts, since there is no legal obligation to pay "entitlements".

[djAdvocate]

Jan 14, 2013 12:10:51 GMT -5 grits said:

The We'll have to go back to pre-New Deal days, and locals take care of themselves.

we don't have to do any such thing. what we need is to have a meaningful discussion about what matters to us, and budget on that basis. all of this chicken little hue and cry is not going to get us there. we need to get down to brass tacks and prioritize. that requires that we behave like adults and get serious about this problem.

i actually appreciate the panic of the Tea Party right on this subject for this reason. they won't stop hollering until something is done, and that is a helpful call of alarm, imo.

[grits]

The voters have been promised those benefits, and they will indeed demand them. You can dream all you want too that politicians won't cave but you are indeed dreaming. You know good and well that you want your Social Security, and Medicare. You can't swing it on the poll forever.

[grits]

One of the things that greatly hurt Romney in the election was the senior citizen vote overwhelmingly went against him. They don't want their entitlements touched. I think you've been swinging on your poll too long.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 14, 2013 13:57:40 GMT -5 grits said:

The voters have been promised those benefits,

the voters are promised a lot of things. but what is legally required is another matter.

and they will indeed demand them.

that should be fun for them. before the SSA stopped sending notices, they indicated the underpayment right on the form. that shows how much they care about the "obligation".

You can dream all you want too that politicians won't cave but you are indeed dreaming.

no, not really. the SSA has no plans to pay full benefits. if you don't know that, you really need to read up on it.

You know good and well that you want your Social Security, and Medicare. You can't swing it on the poll forever.

funny. but no, i don't need SSI. i am set, bro.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 14, 2013 14:01:01 GMT -5 grits said:

One of the things that greatly hurt Romney in the election was the senior citizen vote overwhelmingly went against him.

dude, you are so woefully misinformed that it is getting really tiresome talking to you:

www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/features/2012/election_day_2012/florida_seniors_mitt_romney_is_winning_a_landslide_with_florida_s_oldest.html

They don't want their entitlements touched. I think you've been swinging on your poll too long.

you should try it some time.

[Deleted]

Jan 14, 2013 14:15:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

funny. but no, i don't need SSI. i am set, bro.

djp,

Good for you! That doesn't means other people's in same shoe as you are.

We need to protect those system from going collapse. Too many of citizen's in this country depends on them. That is why,we need to have a balance of approach. That means, listen to both side of the party, willing to compromise.

[Reckless Roselia]

We need to protect those system from going collapse. Too many of citizen's in this country depends on them. That is why,we need to have a balance of approach. That means, listen to both side of the party, willing to compromise.