U.S. spending ax set to fall, but then what?

Comments (20)
jaham wrote:

Then what?

1) We will have a battle over the debt ceiling just as Obama opposed raising it in 2006 under then POTUS GWBush.

2) The Democrats in the Senate will have to pass a budget for the first time since April 29, 2009 (compared to House Republicans having passed a budget every year Obama has been in office) instead of operating under the continuing resolution.

3) Obama will accomplish very little for the remainder of his lame duck term.

Feb 25, 2013 11:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..has it ever donned on you how retarded arguing over the debt ceiling is? Legislation written and passed by Congress that created the spending. Exactly what are they arguing? That Obama made them do it? lmao

Feb 25, 2013 1:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham..btw..Republicans have held the House for only two years since Obama was elected. So they couldn’t have passed a budget every year Obama was in office. But which of their budgets would you like to talk about? The Ryan budget that spends $7T on tax breaks and Defense before even talking about cutting spending or H.R. 5652 that essentially holds the status quo (the debt continues to increase at the same rate). Grid lock is usually a good thing (see the Clinton years), unless you inherit a $1T deficit from the last administration.

Feb 25, 2013 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
cyke1 wrote:

the $1trillion deficit wasn’t not from bush, Whole time bush was in charge it was only 500billion, first year obama got in the white house they passed that 1trillion Stimulus, 1+ trillion Obama care. Since Obama took over the deficit as almost tripled. since it was at he time democrat controlled house and senate. I think republicans should hold firm since they caved on the tax breaks back in December. In 2008 obama called Bush’s spending “irresponsible, unpatriotic” and in 2006 he said it was “sign of leadership failure”. Ironic he can spend over 2x more and its fine.

Feb 25, 2013 2:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

cyke1..here’s another bi-partisan link you really won’t care for..

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/

Feb 25, 2013 2:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

xyz2055…No, using the debt ceiling to force a serious debate over our current fiscal recklessness is not retarded; it is prudent, in my opinion.

Just as Obama highlighted the many externalities of our fiscal imprudence in 2006 when he refused to raise the debt ceiling under GWB, we must use the repeated raising of the debt ceiling as a reminder of our currently unsustainable fiscal path and hopefully as a catalyst for change, as well.

Feb 25, 2013 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

“Republicans have held the House for only two years since Obama was elected. So they couldn’t have passed a budget every year Obama was in office. But which of their budgets would you like to talk about? The Ryan budget that spends $7T on tax breaks and Defense before even talking about cutting spending or H.R. 5652 that essentially holds the status quo (the debt continues to increase at the same rate). Grid lock is usually a good thing (see the Clinton years), unless you inherit a $1T deficit from the last administration.”

Instead of a “talk”, I’d rather like to re-posit a question you continue to avoid but is proven ever more poignant with your constant attempts at deflection and distraction: Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?

Feb 25, 2013 2:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

cyke1..put National Debt by year into your search engine…then look at the debt between 2001 and 2009…it’s trillions higher. You said it was only $500B the whole time. Care to explain the discrepancy?

Feb 25, 2013 2:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

Don’t worry cyke1…I have some fodder for xyz to chew on…here’s another bi-partisan link that demonstrates Obamacare, healthcare savior that it is, allows Medicare to go bankrupt in 2024 and Democrats have no plan to do anything about it…how’s that for leadership!

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/23/news/economy/social_security_medicare_trustees/index.htm

Feb 25, 2013 2:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Instead of a “talk”, I’d rather like to re-posit a question you continue to avoid but is proven ever more poignant with your constant attempts at deflection and distraction: Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?

jaham..you are dense beyond compare. You just don’t get it. The current administration is every bit as guilty as the previous administration. The current crop of politicians are concerned about two things and two things only. Campaign funds and getting re-elected to the gravy train. I’m not letting anybody off the hook. Both sides have their own special interest that they pander to and the rest of us be damned. Cutting spending means that you will make someone mad. Making people mad isn’t how you get re-elected. This is why Obama and Boehner are both working so hard to pin the sequester on the other guy. While Obama won’t be up for re-election..he is loyal to his party. As is Boehner.

How was that regarding your boasting “I have some fodder for xyz to chew on”…lmao. Medicare has been heading down the tubes for decades. You would try and sell that it’s all Obama’s fault. It’s Congresses fault. Presidents come and go…Congressman can last a lifetime and many do.

Feb 25, 2013 2:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham said “xyz2055…No, using the debt ceiling to force a serious debate over our current fiscal recklessness is not retarded; it is prudent, in my opinion.”

It’s prudent to argue against raising the debt ceiling after you authorized spending bills that exceeded it? Any idea how stupid that sounds?

Feb 25, 2013 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz said: “put National Debt by year into your search engine…then look at the debt between 2001 and 2009…it’s trillions higher”

Now look at the debt between when Obama first took office and today and you’ll see that it took Obama less than 4 years to add more dollars to the federal debt than GWB was able to add in 8!

What’s truly comical…is liberals think blaming Bush for his fiscal recklessness somehow hides the fact that Obama has only exacerbated and perpetuated such policies…comical, that is, unless you’re in Gen Y, like me, and will have to foot the bill!

Feb 25, 2013 3:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

jaham cyke1 said that the total debt increased only $500B under Bush..that isn’t true. Name the “New” spending bills signed into law by Obama that created $6T in new debt.

Feb 25, 2013 3:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

One thing I know for sure is no matter what happens in Congress the Fed and Treasury will continue spending $85 billion a month to support low interest rates and the equity markets.

We are nearly at the point where the Fed with is $3 Trillion balance sheet will be in a Catch 22 situation where both the continued buying or in the near future the selling of the MBS’s and Treasury Notes it has purchases will have a negative effect on the economy.

If the Fed loses the ability to keep interest rates at the current low levels of near zero due to market forces outside it’s control the whole shabang will come crashing down with no way to stop it.

A return to Normal Average Historical Federal Funds Rate would destroy the United States as we know it and make the Sequester look like 3 starving kids fighting over two pennies on a playground in Detroit.

Feb 25, 2013 3:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@xyz said: ” Name the “New” spending bills signed into law by Obama that created $6T in new debt.”

I’m honestly interest in how many opportunities you will provide me to posit this same question that you refuse to answer: Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?

You complain about GWB fiscal policies, but refuse to hold Obama accountable for exacerbating and and perpetuating those policies…why?

Feb 25, 2013 3:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Obsilutely wrote:

Actually, Jaham, you have talking points derived from most right-wing media outlets. They are inaccurate as usual and have been debunked many times. The link you posted above as “fodder” has a paragraph that reads, “Nevertheless, the financial position of Medicare overall was improved by the 2010 health reform law. Without it, the program would only be able to pay costs in full until 2016, said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Medicare trustee.” So you’re complaining that it was extended? Your recommendation was to let it fail by 2016? It was going to go bankrupt sooner and your complaint is what? So, you’re mad because one man didn’t end the Medicare guarantee to its citizens or your mad because he didn’t ensure the guarantee indefinitely. What exactly is your argument? Personally, I find it rather ironic that so many people think they “know” how everything works.

And about your poorly worded question: “Do you believe blaming the opposition for all the problems America is facing somehow absolves the current “leadership” of their duty to effect solutions to said problems?”

Aren’t you blaming the opposition in your posts?
Does the “leadership” you mention consist of Republicans as well?
Is prohibiting women’s access to contraceptives and preventative care indicative of a leadership addressing “all the problems America is facing”?
Is pushing a foreign owned pipeline through the middle of our country indicative of a leadership who has their priorities in the correct order?
Is lying to an entire nation in order to start a war for profit something that fits your definition of a great leader?

I have a feeling Obama could cure cancer and you would still complain about it. Some people are just happy being angry and I really hope your perspective on life ascends to a better position.

Feb 25, 2013 3:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

“It’s prudent to argue against raising the debt ceiling after you authorized spending bills that exceeded it? Any idea how stupid that sounds?”

It sounds perfectly logical to me because that spending that has ALREADY been appropriated is unsustainable…

What’s stupid is projecting perpetual deficits and borrowing some $.40+ on every dollar we spend and raising the debt ceiling endlessly without ever stopping to say, hey, we just raised this thing less than a year ago and we’ve already racked up a few more trillion and need to raise it again?!? Let’s do something about it….stupid is continuing to raise it without addressing the problem.

Sounds to me like Congress has and is authorizing too much spending…what say you?

Feb 25, 2013 3:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jaham wrote:

@obsilutely…yes, I am aware that the previous date was 2016 and now it is said to be 2024. I am not content with that. Medicare is broken and Obamacare did little more than push it’s insolvency back 8 years, that is not a solution; why pass a solution that doesn’t solve the problem?

Ohh, you’re a big proponent of can-kicking…makes sense. Perhaps you would be more concerned if you were going to have to foot the bill for entitlements that won’t be there for you when you retire…

@obsilutely said: “Aren’t you blaming the opposition in your posts?”
Yes, blaming for inept leadership on effecting solutions, not for the creating the problem. Perhaps you have comprehension issues but pay very close attention to the use of the word “current”. Further, I was speaking mostly on fiscal and economic issues since that is what this article concerns, but I’ll go for a whirl with you:

@obsilutely said: Does the “leadership” you mention consist of Republicans as well?
Republicans who have passed balanced budgets while Democrats have no passed a budget at all…yes, it includes all of them. But, most specifically, I was referring to the chief leader, the chief executive, NOT the collective group comprising the legislature.

@obsilutely said: Is prohibiting women’s access to contraceptives and preventative care indicative of a leadership addressing “all the problems America is facing”?
It demonstrates as much leadership as those “leading” support for the murdering of fetuses. BTW, no one proposed removing access to contraceptives for all, they proposed not forcing support for contraceptives on religious institutions whose beliefs stipulate differently; you do support the Bill of Rights, correct?

@obsilutely said: Is pushing a foreign owned pipeline through the middle of our country indicative of a leadership who has their priorities in the correct order?
Yes, that would be leading on the issue of jobs and North American energy production. Because, of course, that dirty evil shale oil is going to be extracted regardless of whether we or others get to refine it.

@obsilutely said: Is lying to an entire nation in order to start a war for profit something that fits your definition of a great leader?
I’ve yet to see definitive proof of an overt lie that would rival the likes of “I’ll halve the budget deficit by the end of my first term” or “As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo”…enlighten me. You have again demonstrated that you are content to speak of transgressions of the last administration in lieu of holding the current one accountable…go figure.

I have feeling if Obama cured cancer he would only let the US government control the technology and would not let the private industry help disperse it across the world. Some people are happy with mediocrity and I really hope your narrow minded view is greatly broadened.

Feb 25, 2013 4:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I think it unlikely that any of you will convince the other who is right or wrong. Fun to read though.

Feb 25, 2013 5:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ccharles wrote:

The sequester is to cut federal spending… instead obama wants to cut goverment aid to states? why not cut federal worker. Thats where the cuts need to come from. Trim his staff in half and that would probably be 1 bill of the 85 bill. And the way they are proposing the cuts are stupid in a business sense while trying to gain brownie points for not doing it propely, cut the jobs and create a sustainable path.

Now days no rules or understandings about anything, and everything is confused. This is a trademark of obama and his way of doing things. Chaos and Confusion. Man … gets very tiresome.

Feb 26, 2013 5:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.