Have you noticed how many liberals lately have been piling on President Barack Obama? Their criticism has been harsh and intense. They mostly focus on his supposed willingness to make concessions to conservative Republicans. They charge that he lets himself be bullied because it’s part of his non-confrontational nature.
There was similar criticism in 1995 and 1996 when President Bill Clinton was hammered for making deals with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republicans. Clinton, for example, agreed to major welfare reform, which infuriated many of his liberal base. He was accused of selling out long-standing Democratic Party principles.
It later became clear that Clinton - and it may be the case with Obama as well - was engaged in “triangulation,” a political strategy where he would position himself as a moderate centrist. He was reaching out to independent voters who were not blindly aligned with core Democrats or Republicans.
It was a strategy, by the way, that helped Clinton win re-election in 1996 against Republican nominee Bob Dole.
Clinton’s aides used to say they were happy when liberals criticized him. They thought that would position him well with moderate and independent voters who, of course, are critical in carrying Ohio, Florida and other major swing states in the Electoral College.
All of which raises the question now: Do Obama political aides secretly welcome the criticism from the left? I’ve been checking around, and the short answer - at least for now - is no. Unlike those Clinton aides in the ‘90s, they don’t like the criticism. But I suspect that could change as we get closer to November 2012.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
TERRIBLE Day on Wallstreet
When President Barack Obama started speaking at the White House at 1:52 p.m. today, the Dow Jones was down around 400 points. When he wrapped up 10 minutes later, it was down around 430 points. And when the market closed at 4 p.m., the Dow was down 635 points for the day – a drop of more than 5.6%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq index was down nearly 6.9% for the day. The S&P 500 was down 6.7%. In short, it was a horrendous day on Wall Street – as it was earlier in Europe and Asia.
It’s certainly not fair to blame only the president for this awful downslide. There are limits to what he can do in the current economic and political climate. There is plenty of blame to go around – including to congressional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.
But it’s also clear that Obama and his top advisers are focusing much more aggressively now on steps he might be able to take to try to turn things around. In his remarks today, he said he would soon be coming up with new recommendations for the proposed congressional super committee of 12 members who are supposed to come up with new deficit reduction plans. The president said they should include increased tax revenue – meaning higher taxes on the wealthy – and “modest adjustments” to Medicare. Conservatives won’t like higher taxes; liberals won’t like Medicare cuts.
By the way, it wasn’t just Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ that caused today’s market collapse. The markets have been falling steadily and ominously for two weeks. Investors in the United States and around the world have lost trillions of dollars in equity. Their portfolios have suffered big time, and no one can say when this slide will stop.
It’s certainly not fair to blame only the president for this awful downslide. There are limits to what he can do in the current economic and political climate. There is plenty of blame to go around – including to congressional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.
But it’s also clear that Obama and his top advisers are focusing much more aggressively now on steps he might be able to take to try to turn things around. In his remarks today, he said he would soon be coming up with new recommendations for the proposed congressional super committee of 12 members who are supposed to come up with new deficit reduction plans. The president said they should include increased tax revenue – meaning higher taxes on the wealthy – and “modest adjustments” to Medicare. Conservatives won’t like higher taxes; liberals won’t like Medicare cuts.
By the way, it wasn’t just Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+ that caused today’s market collapse. The markets have been falling steadily and ominously for two weeks. Investors in the United States and around the world have lost trillions of dollars in equity. Their portfolios have suffered big time, and no one can say when this slide will stop.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Personal Opinion 6: What the...
Afghanistan is a lost cause - USA is outspending the Taliban/Rebels by a factor of at least 1000 for more than 9 years now. If you are outspending your enemy by 1000 times for 9 years and still not manage to win the war, something is very wrong and you need to seriously re-examine your strategy and may be evne pull out. I haven't heard conclusively from the military on EXACTLY what we are doing wrong there. Why haven't we won already after outspending the Taliban/Rebels by 1000x for 9 years?
30 Troops Die In Afghanistan
In the single deadliest loss for U.S. troops since the Afghan war began in late 2001, 30 service members died early Saturday when a helicopter carrying them went down while they were reinforcing other troops, officials said.
Insurgents are believed to have shot down the CH-47 Chinook, a U.S. military official said. The Taliban claimed militants downed the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.
Among the 25 U.S. special forces killed in Wardak province were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be the "best of the best." Seven Afghan troops also died.
The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said.
The troops died during a "quick reaction" mission to assist military personnel pinned down by insurgents in a fierce firefight, a U.S. military official told CNN.
Mohammad Hazrat Janan, head of the provincial council, said Tangi village elders reported that insurgents shot at the craft when it was returning from an operation.
Officials are being especially tight-lipped because recovery operations at the site are still underway and body identifications and family notifications are just beginning, a U.S. military official said.
ISAF has not said how the incident occurred. Spokesman Justin Brockhoff acknowledged the helicopter had been flying in an area where there was reported insurgent activity.
"No words describe the sorrow we feel in the wake of this tragic loss," said Gen. John R. Allen, ISAF commander. "All of those killed in this operation were true heroes who had already given so much in the defense of freedom. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who are now waiting for their loved ones to return home. We will do everything in our power to support them in this time of need."
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which said the helicopter went down Friday evening, said ISAF "is still assessing the circumstances that resulted in these deaths."
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said it's too early to say if the Taliban caused the crash. He called for an investigation.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama and others offered condolences.
"Information is still coming in about this incident. I think it's important that we allow investigators to do their work before jumping to too many conclusions," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's also important that we respect the process of notifying family members, no matter how long that takes. We ought to remember that the troops we lose in this war aren't just statistics or numbers on a wall. They were parents and siblings, and someone's child. We need to make sure we do all we can to comfort and support the families whose lives are now forever changed."
Obama was first notified of the incident shortly after 8 p.m. Friday, a White House official told CNN. The president led a telephone briefing midmorning Saturday.
The CH-47 Chinook is the workhorse helicopter of the Army, used for decades to haul large numbers of troops and quantities of equipment.
The military is looking into whether the helicopter was vulnerable to being shot down.
Depending on the configuration, the tandem-rotor Chinook can carry 33 to 55 troops, plus two pilots on the flight deck, according to Jane's Defence Equipment and Technology. It is capable of speeds up to 159 mph. The front rotor turns counter-clockwise while the rear rotor turns clockwise.
The SEALs, and other special forces, are given dangerous missions and go after insurgents in remote areas. A huge amount of money, training and expertise is poured into their careers. Along with carrying out counter-terrorism assaults on the Afghan-Pakistani border, they conduct training and military missions around the world.
The Afghan street is buzzing with reflection about the significance of the incident.
"It shows that the Taliban are very strong and have not been defeated by the U.S.," said Kabul resident Saifurahman Ahmezai.
But others said the incident is not emblematic of a new-found insurgent strength.
"The Taliban are not that powerful," said Hezat, a police officer in Kabul who goes only by one name. "But if the international forces leave Afghanistan, the situation will get even worse."
Last month, a NATO helicopter was brought down by insurgent fire in the country's eastern province of Kunar. The Taliban also claimed responsibility for that attack, though no injuries were reported.
In a separate incident, a NATO service member died Saturday after an improvised explosive device detonated in southern Afghanistan. Elsewhere, a joint Afghan and coalition force conducted raids in the eastern province of Nangarhar, killing "several insurgents," NATO reported.
The operation also targeted a "Taliban facilitator," who NATO said was responsible for supplying ammunition and bomb-making materials to the Taliban.
In July, a series of gun battles in Nangarhar between insurgents and NATO forces left at least 10 militants dead.
Insurgents are believed to have shot down the CH-47 Chinook, a U.S. military official said. The Taliban claimed militants downed the helicopter with a rocket-propelled grenade.
Among the 25 U.S. special forces killed in Wardak province were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be the "best of the best." Seven Afghan troops also died.
The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said.
The troops died during a "quick reaction" mission to assist military personnel pinned down by insurgents in a fierce firefight, a U.S. military official told CNN.
Mohammad Hazrat Janan, head of the provincial council, said Tangi village elders reported that insurgents shot at the craft when it was returning from an operation.
Officials are being especially tight-lipped because recovery operations at the site are still underway and body identifications and family notifications are just beginning, a U.S. military official said.
ISAF has not said how the incident occurred. Spokesman Justin Brockhoff acknowledged the helicopter had been flying in an area where there was reported insurgent activity.
"No words describe the sorrow we feel in the wake of this tragic loss," said Gen. John R. Allen, ISAF commander. "All of those killed in this operation were true heroes who had already given so much in the defense of freedom. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who are now waiting for their loved ones to return home. We will do everything in our power to support them in this time of need."
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which said the helicopter went down Friday evening, said ISAF "is still assessing the circumstances that resulted in these deaths."
Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said it's too early to say if the Taliban caused the crash. He called for an investigation.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama and others offered condolences.
"Information is still coming in about this incident. I think it's important that we allow investigators to do their work before jumping to too many conclusions," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"It's also important that we respect the process of notifying family members, no matter how long that takes. We ought to remember that the troops we lose in this war aren't just statistics or numbers on a wall. They were parents and siblings, and someone's child. We need to make sure we do all we can to comfort and support the families whose lives are now forever changed."
Obama was first notified of the incident shortly after 8 p.m. Friday, a White House official told CNN. The president led a telephone briefing midmorning Saturday.
The CH-47 Chinook is the workhorse helicopter of the Army, used for decades to haul large numbers of troops and quantities of equipment.
The military is looking into whether the helicopter was vulnerable to being shot down.
Depending on the configuration, the tandem-rotor Chinook can carry 33 to 55 troops, plus two pilots on the flight deck, according to Jane's Defence Equipment and Technology. It is capable of speeds up to 159 mph. The front rotor turns counter-clockwise while the rear rotor turns clockwise.
The SEALs, and other special forces, are given dangerous missions and go after insurgents in remote areas. A huge amount of money, training and expertise is poured into their careers. Along with carrying out counter-terrorism assaults on the Afghan-Pakistani border, they conduct training and military missions around the world.
The Afghan street is buzzing with reflection about the significance of the incident.
"It shows that the Taliban are very strong and have not been defeated by the U.S.," said Kabul resident Saifurahman Ahmezai.
But others said the incident is not emblematic of a new-found insurgent strength.
"The Taliban are not that powerful," said Hezat, a police officer in Kabul who goes only by one name. "But if the international forces leave Afghanistan, the situation will get even worse."
Last month, a NATO helicopter was brought down by insurgent fire in the country's eastern province of Kunar. The Taliban also claimed responsibility for that attack, though no injuries were reported.
In a separate incident, a NATO service member died Saturday after an improvised explosive device detonated in southern Afghanistan. Elsewhere, a joint Afghan and coalition force conducted raids in the eastern province of Nangarhar, killing "several insurgents," NATO reported.
The operation also targeted a "Taliban facilitator," who NATO said was responsible for supplying ammunition and bomb-making materials to the Taliban.
In July, a series of gun battles in Nangarhar between insurgents and NATO forces left at least 10 militants dead.
There are 150,000 ISAF forces in Afghanistan, including nearly 100,000 from the United States -- the largest NATO presence in the region since the U.S.-led war began in 2001.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Personal Opinion 5: Honestly....
COMMENT FROM FL on the previous post:
How is Obama supposed to balance the budget when you have a crop of born-again fiscal conservatives who don't believe in revenue creation or the government doing anything to spur job growth?
Once the tea party and the far-right republicans are out, then we can get a Congress together that can compromise and get things done.
MY OPINION:
'Revenue? For what? To spend billions on the save the spotted owl society? Cut all non essential expenditures, cut defense as much as you can without putting our supremacy at risk and pay off the 14 trillion in debt. Once we are on our way to a balanced budget then we can talk about healthcare and pet projects. The bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Defense take up the overwhelming majority of the budget and they are growing. We cannot pay for it much longer and that is a simple fact. It sucks, but it does not stop it from being true. They have waited so long that it cannot be done without pain, and a lot of it. If we took every dollar from every millionaire it would not even put a dent in what we owe, all it would do is make them move on to greener pastures and take their jobs with them'
How is Obama supposed to balance the budget when you have a crop of born-again fiscal conservatives who don't believe in revenue creation or the government doing anything to spur job growth?
Once the tea party and the far-right republicans are out, then we can get a Congress together that can compromise and get things done.
MY OPINION:
'Revenue? For what? To spend billions on the save the spotted owl society? Cut all non essential expenditures, cut defense as much as you can without putting our supremacy at risk and pay off the 14 trillion in debt. Once we are on our way to a balanced budget then we can talk about healthcare and pet projects. The bottom line is that Social Security, Medicare and Defense take up the overwhelming majority of the budget and they are growing. We cannot pay for it much longer and that is a simple fact. It sucks, but it does not stop it from being true. They have waited so long that it cannot be done without pain, and a lot of it. If we took every dollar from every millionaire it would not even put a dent in what we owe, all it would do is make them move on to greener pastures and take their jobs with them'
John Huntsman in New Hampshire
On a breezy evening in August, Jon Huntsman walked into a house party filled with undecided New Hampshire voters and started shaking hands.
Across from the table of hors d'oeuvres, State Rep Joanne Ward, R-Stratham, noticed something was off. And when the GOP presidential candidate made his way to her, she chided him on it.
"I want to know why when you came in you went to the left, instead of the right," she said, laughing. "I strategically said, he's going to start to the right."
Huntsman laughingly blamed his veer to the left on the flow of the room, and promised he would remember Ward's tip in the future. But as he traverses New Hampshire, the man who served as ambassador to China under President Obama may get a boost from voters near the middle.
New Hampshire holds a semi-open primary in January, in which a huge swath of undeclared independents may choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican race. Of all registered voters here, 42% are undeclared, according to the New Hampshire secretary of state, and with no contest for the Democratic nominee, independents have an outsized influence on the Republican primary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, benefited from that middle of the road constituency when he won the state's primary in 2008, setting up his path to the GOP nomination despite a loss in the Iowa caucuses.
Huntsman is not putting resources into Iowa, which tends to reward social conservatives, and New Hampshire is probably the biggest hope in 2012 for the candidate who barely registers in recent national polls.
On a recent visit to downtown Manchester, the former Utah governor worked his charm on Angie Content, co-owner of the Styling Souls salon. An undeclared independent voter, Content supported Obama in the last election but said she's shopping around for a new candidate.
"I'm not happy with what he's doing with the country," she said of the president.
Another independent, physician Cindy Cooper, attended a house party for Huntsman this week. Socially, Cooper tends to agree with Obama, especially on issues like abortion and gun control, but she's hoping for a more "fiscally responsible" candidate who would balance the federal budget.
"If it was between Obama and him I would really have to sort it out," she said.
Cooper was impressed by Huntsman's support of Washington's debt deal -- an agreement slammed by every other major GOP candidate.
"Huntsman's been the one so far who's even tried to compromise with the budget," she said.
In many of his stances, however, the governor has moved to distance himself from the president and fought back against claims that he is too liberal to top the Republican ticket.
Huntsman has harshly criticized what he calls the president's "failed" handling of the economy and charged that Obama's lack of leadership on the debt ceiling negotiations almost brought the financial sector to a standstill.
"It would have been better if we had a head start and we actually had some leadership to begin with, if we actually took a look at problem solving months ago as opposed to hours before the deadline,' he told patrons at a Manchester pizza parlor.
And at an event in Derry, Huntsman told a group of Republican voters he would issue an executive order abolishing "Obamacare" his first day in office because the measure couldn't be broken down to meet the needs of each individual state.
But Huntsman supports other initiatives that could win more bipartisan support. He maintains the U.S. should significantly draw down ground troops from Afghanistan and let the Afghans run their own country.
He also supports the DREAM Act, which would give certain illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children tuition assistance and a path to citizenship.
"I believe that young kids when they're dragged here to the United States have no say over their journey. They have no say over their destiny," he said at an event at the Salem Chamber of Commerce. "And we either have a two-tiered bifurcated system or we allow, somehow, people to achieve the American dream."
Asked about his bipartisan appeal, Huntsman first emphasized his unofficial campaign slogan of "conservative problem solver" and pointed to his record as a tax-cutter in Utah.
But the governor knows undeclared independent voters could be key to his success in the state.
"You gotta get votes to win, and the primary in this state is open last I saw," he said. "I'm going to get to know everybody in this state, and we're going to get every vote we can. Every vote matters."
Huntsman's big challenge will be to appeal to moderate independent voters in New Hampshire without turning off die-hard conservatives elsewhere in the country.
Across from the table of hors d'oeuvres, State Rep Joanne Ward, R-Stratham, noticed something was off. And when the GOP presidential candidate made his way to her, she chided him on it.
"I want to know why when you came in you went to the left, instead of the right," she said, laughing. "I strategically said, he's going to start to the right."
Huntsman laughingly blamed his veer to the left on the flow of the room, and promised he would remember Ward's tip in the future. But as he traverses New Hampshire, the man who served as ambassador to China under President Obama may get a boost from voters near the middle.
New Hampshire holds a semi-open primary in January, in which a huge swath of undeclared independents may choose to vote in either the Democratic or Republican race. Of all registered voters here, 42% are undeclared, according to the New Hampshire secretary of state, and with no contest for the Democratic nominee, independents have an outsized influence on the Republican primary.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, benefited from that middle of the road constituency when he won the state's primary in 2008, setting up his path to the GOP nomination despite a loss in the Iowa caucuses.
Huntsman is not putting resources into Iowa, which tends to reward social conservatives, and New Hampshire is probably the biggest hope in 2012 for the candidate who barely registers in recent national polls.
On a recent visit to downtown Manchester, the former Utah governor worked his charm on Angie Content, co-owner of the Styling Souls salon. An undeclared independent voter, Content supported Obama in the last election but said she's shopping around for a new candidate.
"I'm not happy with what he's doing with the country," she said of the president.
Another independent, physician Cindy Cooper, attended a house party for Huntsman this week. Socially, Cooper tends to agree with Obama, especially on issues like abortion and gun control, but she's hoping for a more "fiscally responsible" candidate who would balance the federal budget.
"If it was between Obama and him I would really have to sort it out," she said.
Cooper was impressed by Huntsman's support of Washington's debt deal -- an agreement slammed by every other major GOP candidate.
"Huntsman's been the one so far who's even tried to compromise with the budget," she said.
In many of his stances, however, the governor has moved to distance himself from the president and fought back against claims that he is too liberal to top the Republican ticket.
Huntsman has harshly criticized what he calls the president's "failed" handling of the economy and charged that Obama's lack of leadership on the debt ceiling negotiations almost brought the financial sector to a standstill.
"It would have been better if we had a head start and we actually had some leadership to begin with, if we actually took a look at problem solving months ago as opposed to hours before the deadline,' he told patrons at a Manchester pizza parlor.
And at an event in Derry, Huntsman told a group of Republican voters he would issue an executive order abolishing "Obamacare" his first day in office because the measure couldn't be broken down to meet the needs of each individual state.
But Huntsman supports other initiatives that could win more bipartisan support. He maintains the U.S. should significantly draw down ground troops from Afghanistan and let the Afghans run their own country.
He also supports the DREAM Act, which would give certain illegal immigrants who were brought into the country as children tuition assistance and a path to citizenship.
"I believe that young kids when they're dragged here to the United States have no say over their journey. They have no say over their destiny," he said at an event at the Salem Chamber of Commerce. "And we either have a two-tiered bifurcated system or we allow, somehow, people to achieve the American dream."
Asked about his bipartisan appeal, Huntsman first emphasized his unofficial campaign slogan of "conservative problem solver" and pointed to his record as a tax-cutter in Utah.
But the governor knows undeclared independent voters could be key to his success in the state.
"You gotta get votes to win, and the primary in this state is open last I saw," he said. "I'm going to get to know everybody in this state, and we're going to get every vote we can. Every vote matters."
Huntsman's big challenge will be to appeal to moderate independent voters in New Hampshire without turning off die-hard conservatives elsewhere in the country.
"Gov. Huntsman has a proven track record as a conservative problem-solver who cut taxes, passed free-market health care reform and oversaw the best state for job growth in the country," said Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller. "We're confident that record is going to appeal to a wide-swatch of voters."
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Personal Opinion 4: Republican Much?
Priebus is like most republicans: inept, incompetent, hateful, anti-American, anti union, anti police, anti firemen, anti government, anti senior citizen, anti veteran, anti teacher, anti hispanic, anti black, anti environment, and anti poor; while being pro war, pro billionaire, pro foreign corporation, and a subscriber to Hoover Economics.
The republican party are the worst of the worst . . . they create a chaotic situation and blames the president, they say no to everything, every policies designed to aid the economy doing this president's watch. The republican party and their candidates are behind the scenes sabotaging this great country. They are like wayward kids throwing rocks at cars on the highway causing all kinds of accidents and traffic back-ups and pointing the finger at the president who is also on that same highway driving out in front. Wake up America to what the republican party have become. Traitors . . . Obama 2012
The republican party are the worst of the worst . . . they create a chaotic situation and blames the president, they say no to everything, every policies designed to aid the economy doing this president's watch. The republican party and their candidates are behind the scenes sabotaging this great country. They are like wayward kids throwing rocks at cars on the highway causing all kinds of accidents and traffic back-ups and pointing the finger at the president who is also on that same highway driving out in front. Wake up America to what the republican party have become. Traitors . . . Obama 2012
Happy Birthday President Obama!
President Obama will head home to Chicago Wednesday for birthday-themed fundraisers.
One thousand five hundred people are expected at the archaic Aragon Ballroom Wednesday night, according to Katie Hogan, deputy press secretary for Obama's re-election campaign. Attendees paid a minimum of $50 per ticket, which will flow to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account with the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election campaign.
Entertainment for the event, on the eve of the president's 50th birthday, will include rock band OK Go, Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock.
The president will attend a 100-person dinner before the larger event. Individuals spent up to $35,800 for a ticket, $5,000 of which will go to the Obama campaign. The remainder of the funds will go to the DNC.
Prior to the fundraisers, the president will hold video teleconferences in 1,100 birthday house parties across the country set to last between 10 and 15 minutes. In addition, top Democrats and campaign officials will host seven "surrogate fundraisers" throughout the country, according to Hogan.
Wednesday's events are the first held by the president during the third fundraising quarter. His last event on June 30th was in Philadelphia.
Republicans jumped on the string of events, accusing the president of playing politics amid rough economic times.
In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the president's leadership has been nonexistent, "unless of course it's taking the initiative to raise campaign cash."
"The fundraiser in chief is back in Chicago doing the one thing that he's really good at and that's raising money to save his job," Priebus said according to a transcript provided by the RNC.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a video Wednesday morning in-step with his campaign message that "Obama isn't working." The nearly minute-long spot highlighted the rise in unemployment and drop in housing prices in Chicago since Obama took office.
The White House announced a Midwest bus tour on Wednesday to refocus the president's attention on the U.S. economy, one day after he signed legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
One thousand five hundred people are expected at the archaic Aragon Ballroom Wednesday night, according to Katie Hogan, deputy press secretary for Obama's re-election campaign. Attendees paid a minimum of $50 per ticket, which will flow to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account with the Democratic National Committee and the Obama re-election campaign.
Entertainment for the event, on the eve of the president's 50th birthday, will include rock band OK Go, Jennifer Hudson and Herbie Hancock.
The president will attend a 100-person dinner before the larger event. Individuals spent up to $35,800 for a ticket, $5,000 of which will go to the Obama campaign. The remainder of the funds will go to the DNC.
Prior to the fundraisers, the president will hold video teleconferences in 1,100 birthday house parties across the country set to last between 10 and 15 minutes. In addition, top Democrats and campaign officials will host seven "surrogate fundraisers" throughout the country, according to Hogan.
Wednesday's events are the first held by the president during the third fundraising quarter. His last event on June 30th was in Philadelphia.
Republicans jumped on the string of events, accusing the president of playing politics amid rough economic times.
In a conference call with reporters, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said the president's leadership has been nonexistent, "unless of course it's taking the initiative to raise campaign cash."
"The fundraiser in chief is back in Chicago doing the one thing that he's really good at and that's raising money to save his job," Priebus said according to a transcript provided by the RNC.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a video Wednesday morning in-step with his campaign message that "Obama isn't working." The nearly minute-long spot highlighted the rise in unemployment and drop in housing prices in Chicago since Obama took office.
The White House announced a Midwest bus tour on Wednesday to refocus the president's attention on the U.S. economy, one day after he signed legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Personal Opinion 3: Uhm HELLO?
Despite countless pre-election promises in 2010, the GOP hasn't tried to pass a jobs bill for the simple reason that they have no freaking clue how to actually create jobs! They're only good at distracting people by coming up with the "Crisis of the Month" club - illegal immigration, planned parenthood, gay marriage, debt ceilings, etc. - anything to get voters to forget what they promised us in 2010.
The deficit/debt was NOT a crisis and should only have been dealt with during good economic times, certainly not now. Cutting gov't spending is GUARANTEED to increase unemployment and lower overall consumer demand. The job market will now only get worse.
Did none of these idiots study Japan and see how they made the same stupid (conservative supply-side) mistakes we're now doing? After a decade of economic non-growth, Japan's leaders realized they should have listened to the liberal demand-side economists and increased gov't spending, not decreased it. Demand-side policy puts more money in the hands of the middle class, who buy more stuff, causing businesses to need more help. The GOP's supply-side policy was to give more money to rich people so they would invest it, as if that creates jobs. The Japanese are rightfully talking about how stupid American politicians must be to not learn from their example
The deficit/debt was NOT a crisis and should only have been dealt with during good economic times, certainly not now. Cutting gov't spending is GUARANTEED to increase unemployment and lower overall consumer demand. The job market will now only get worse.
Did none of these idiots study Japan and see how they made the same stupid (conservative supply-side) mistakes we're now doing? After a decade of economic non-growth, Japan's leaders realized they should have listened to the liberal demand-side economists and increased gov't spending, not decreased it. Demand-side policy puts more money in the hands of the middle class, who buy more stuff, causing businesses to need more help. The GOP's supply-side policy was to give more money to rich people so they would invest it, as if that creates jobs. The Japanese are rightfully talking about how stupid American politicians must be to not learn from their example
The Debt Ceiling deal is NOT going to start handing out jobs
The deal to raise the debt ceiling may remove the risk of a 2008-like meltdown in financial markets that had made employers very nervous in recent months.
But even if the debt deal is passed by Congress, labor market experts don't expect it to jumpstart hiring growth.
"I would say this will have little effect if any," said Jeff Joerres, Chairman and CEO of staffing firm ManpowerGroup (MAN, Fortune 500). "It's nice to clear one worry off the desk, but there are a lot of other things to worry about.
"At the end of the day, demand trumps all, and right now demand is sluggish, regardless of industry," he said.
The economy added just 43,000 jobs in May and June combined as the debt ceiling debate dragged out in Washington. And economists surveyed by CNNMoney forecast a gain of only 77,000 jobs for July when the latest employment report is released Friday.
A survey last week found many worried about a new recession if Congress failed to reach a deal by the Aug. 2 deadline.
The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that the spending cuts will cost the economy 323,000 jobs in 2012. It also estimates that allowing the payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment benefits to expire could cost an additional 1.5 million jobs.
But most of the cuts are fairly modest. Only about $21 billion, or 1%, would come in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2012. Without a deal, there could have been an immediate halt of about $134 billion in government spending in August alone, according to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis.
Jennie Dede, vice president of recruitment for Adecco Staffing, says while the labor market is better off without that kind of shock, the debt ceiling agreement isn't likely to prompt businesses to hire if they didn't already have plans to do so.
"People are just being conservative in general with hiring," she said. "They want to make sure it's going to make an impact on their business. You have to really fight to get a hire approved inside a business nowadays."
Economists who closely monitor the labor market agree they're not expecting hiring to take off in the wake of the deal.
"It would be wonderful if [the debt ceiling agreement] being resolved had the economy take off like a rocket. But I don't think that'll be the case," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, the firm that compiles the closely-watched ADP monthly employment index.
He said while the continuation of a payroll tax holiday or some other kind of fiscal stimulus could help the job market, the debate over the debt ceiling demonstrates Congress is in no mood to take any kind of action to spur growth or hiring.
But even if the debt deal is passed by Congress, labor market experts don't expect it to jumpstart hiring growth.
"I would say this will have little effect if any," said Jeff Joerres, Chairman and CEO of staffing firm ManpowerGroup (MAN, Fortune 500). "It's nice to clear one worry off the desk, but there are a lot of other things to worry about.
"At the end of the day, demand trumps all, and right now demand is sluggish, regardless of industry," he said.
The economy added just 43,000 jobs in May and June combined as the debt ceiling debate dragged out in Washington. And economists surveyed by CNNMoney forecast a gain of only 77,000 jobs for July when the latest employment report is released Friday.
A survey last week found many worried about a new recession if Congress failed to reach a deal by the Aug. 2 deadline.
Read the debt ceiling bill
Some economists fear that the $2.1 trillion in spending cuts called for in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling will slow the economy.The Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, estimates that the spending cuts will cost the economy 323,000 jobs in 2012. It also estimates that allowing the payroll tax holiday and extended unemployment benefits to expire could cost an additional 1.5 million jobs.
But most of the cuts are fairly modest. Only about $21 billion, or 1%, would come in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2012. Without a deal, there could have been an immediate halt of about $134 billion in government spending in August alone, according to a Bipartisan Policy Center analysis.
Jennie Dede, vice president of recruitment for Adecco Staffing, says while the labor market is better off without that kind of shock, the debt ceiling agreement isn't likely to prompt businesses to hire if they didn't already have plans to do so.
"People are just being conservative in general with hiring," she said. "They want to make sure it's going to make an impact on their business. You have to really fight to get a hire approved inside a business nowadays."
Economists who closely monitor the labor market agree they're not expecting hiring to take off in the wake of the deal.
"It would be wonderful if [the debt ceiling agreement] being resolved had the economy take off like a rocket. But I don't think that'll be the case," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, the firm that compiles the closely-watched ADP monthly employment index.
He said while the continuation of a payroll tax holiday or some other kind of fiscal stimulus could help the job market, the debate over the debt ceiling demonstrates Congress is in no mood to take any kind of action to spur growth or hiring.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Note to America
Hello, America, how are you? Well, I hope. And, while you're doing well and doing the things you like to do, please look back over the last ten years. Can you see that our government has put us in two wars at a cost of $3,000,000,000,000 and the lives of almost 6000 of our military? Please notice that those wars have also killed more than a hundred thousand Arabs and Muslims and that the money required to prosecute this carnage was all borrowed and has helped increase our national debt from around 8 trillion dollars to more than 14 trillion dollars. Your kids and grand-kids, of course, will pay it back.
During these years our government also gave tax cuts to many Americans, including some of you, and certainly to the very wealthy. Our elected officials mismanaged our economy beyond normal risk and we had to bail out the banks and investment companies and the insurance and automobile companies with borrowed money. All of this while average Americans faced unemployment, lower wages, foreclosure, and many, many other financial challenges.
And now our government, Republicans and Democrats alike, wants us to reduce this debt and are asking average Americans and even some of our most vulnerable citizens to pay for the wars, the mismanagement of our economy, and the tax cuts. This is to be done by cutting spending on some of our most important programs like education, health care, infrastructure, and even social programs for the elderly and needy. Congress is proposing to divide the older and younger generations health care coverage into different programs; leaving a more generous health care system for older people while younger people have to live with a much more expensive system. This divide and conquer tactic can only result in generational bickering and less quality health care for everyone.
All of this will be done to reduce the national debt incurred by unnecessary wars, huge tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and plain old greed. Of course, the wars are still being waged at a cost of around 250 billion dollars a year and Obama has "compromised " with Republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while Congress works night and day to make average Americans and the most vulnerable pay for these excesses.
During these years our government also gave tax cuts to many Americans, including some of you, and certainly to the very wealthy. Our elected officials mismanaged our economy beyond normal risk and we had to bail out the banks and investment companies and the insurance and automobile companies with borrowed money. All of this while average Americans faced unemployment, lower wages, foreclosure, and many, many other financial challenges.
And now our government, Republicans and Democrats alike, wants us to reduce this debt and are asking average Americans and even some of our most vulnerable citizens to pay for the wars, the mismanagement of our economy, and the tax cuts. This is to be done by cutting spending on some of our most important programs like education, health care, infrastructure, and even social programs for the elderly and needy. Congress is proposing to divide the older and younger generations health care coverage into different programs; leaving a more generous health care system for older people while younger people have to live with a much more expensive system. This divide and conquer tactic can only result in generational bickering and less quality health care for everyone.
All of this will be done to reduce the national debt incurred by unnecessary wars, huge tax cuts, economic mismanagement, and plain old greed. Of course, the wars are still being waged at a cost of around 250 billion dollars a year and Obama has "compromised " with Republicans to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while Congress works night and day to make average Americans and the most vulnerable pay for these excesses.
Personal Opinion 2
We are becoming a country where a signification portion of the population is non-working or non-productive and are dependent on some sort of government program... social security, medicare, medicaid, Section 8. How about people working for the government (sic) inefficiently producing really nothing? Or those omnipresent security guards who add little value to the overall economy!
When the Social Security (ponzi scheme) program was put in place it was easy to support it as there were a lot of workers for each retired individual. Today there are three workers for each retiree, and the pool of retiree is growing rapidly. Same goes for the great Medicare program. I cant imagine how it will be out in the future when each worker will be responsible for supporting one retiree!
And don't get me started about Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps and other programs where people who contributed nothing and are living off of the rest of the society! There are women who are making babies without any responsibility for taking care of them, and sticking the rest of us with the check! And there are are equal number of dead beat dads/boys, whatever, who abscond after impregnating these women... and many of them are eligible for these government dependency promoting addictive programs! These are the so called 'poor' and 'vulnerable' of our society.
Hold on, the middle class isn't without fault either. Not having to pay directly out of their pockets for things that they are really responsible to themselves for, such as education for their own kids or for that matter of fact their own healthcare, the middle class has been careless/reckless consumers of these high cost goods & services. As a result, the cost of K-12 is stupendously high and the cost of health insurance is going through the roof.
All of us share blame for it... the rich, the poor and the middle class as well!
When the Social Security (ponzi scheme) program was put in place it was easy to support it as there were a lot of workers for each retired individual. Today there are three workers for each retiree, and the pool of retiree is growing rapidly. Same goes for the great Medicare program. I cant imagine how it will be out in the future when each worker will be responsible for supporting one retiree!
And don't get me started about Medicaid, Section 8, Food Stamps and other programs where people who contributed nothing and are living off of the rest of the society! There are women who are making babies without any responsibility for taking care of them, and sticking the rest of us with the check! And there are are equal number of dead beat dads/boys, whatever, who abscond after impregnating these women... and many of them are eligible for these government dependency promoting addictive programs! These are the so called 'poor' and 'vulnerable' of our society.
Hold on, the middle class isn't without fault either. Not having to pay directly out of their pockets for things that they are really responsible to themselves for, such as education for their own kids or for that matter of fact their own healthcare, the middle class has been careless/reckless consumers of these high cost goods & services. As a result, the cost of K-12 is stupendously high and the cost of health insurance is going through the roof.
All of us share blame for it... the rich, the poor and the middle class as well!
Personal Opinion
The reality is that it is "your job" only if you own the company, are somehow indispensable or are returning superior value. If you can be fired from a job because you don't deliver enough value, it is not really your job.. no matter what you say.
You will not be "fired from your job" only if you are delivering more ROI (return on investment) than somebody else can. The cost of labor is not the only factor. I would rather pay twice the salary to somebody who is three times as productive!
So when companies outsource, they are getting more for their money in terms of ROI, even if the productivity of the offshore resources are lower than US resources, because of the significant cost differential in cost of labor.
The only way the higher cost American and other Western labor can compete with the lower cost offshore labor is by returning back more value to the companies that hire them. This means being more productive, innovative, higher quality, better service, etc. Just doing the same amount of work and returning the same amount of value as the offshore labor, and expecting to get paid five times as much is not realistic.
The other way for the higher cost western labor to compete with the lower cost offshore labor is for the Western governments to put very high import tariffs for products imported from other countries. But then our citizens would not be able to buy so much low cost 'Made in Asia' stuff from the big box retail stores!
It is strange, the same people who complain about jobs being outsourced, are the ones that buy lots of imported stuff! If you do not want jobs to be outsourced, then buy 'Made in America' even if you have to pay three times as much! If not, you are a contributory factor to jobs being outsourced!
You will not be "fired from your job" only if you are delivering more ROI (return on investment) than somebody else can. The cost of labor is not the only factor. I would rather pay twice the salary to somebody who is three times as productive!
So when companies outsource, they are getting more for their money in terms of ROI, even if the productivity of the offshore resources are lower than US resources, because of the significant cost differential in cost of labor.
The only way the higher cost American and other Western labor can compete with the lower cost offshore labor is by returning back more value to the companies that hire them. This means being more productive, innovative, higher quality, better service, etc. Just doing the same amount of work and returning the same amount of value as the offshore labor, and expecting to get paid five times as much is not realistic.
The other way for the higher cost western labor to compete with the lower cost offshore labor is for the Western governments to put very high import tariffs for products imported from other countries. But then our citizens would not be able to buy so much low cost 'Made in Asia' stuff from the big box retail stores!
It is strange, the same people who complain about jobs being outsourced, are the ones that buy lots of imported stuff! If you do not want jobs to be outsourced, then buy 'Made in America' even if you have to pay three times as much! If not, you are a contributory factor to jobs being outsourced!
Update 8:05 p.m. ET
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, whose vote for the debt-ceiling compromise bill Monday was the first vote she cast since she was shot in January, has released a statement:
"I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington," Giffords, D-Arizona, said. "After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy."
Her statement noted that she didn't vote for a debt-limit increase in December 2009 and February 2010. It said that Monday's vote was different, arguing that the strength of the U.S. economy was hanging in the balance.
Giffords had been away from the House since she was shot through the head during a meeting with constituents in Tucson. She was released from inpatient rehabilitation at a Texas medical center in June.
Six other people, including one of her aides and a federal judge, were killed and 12 others were wounded in the Tucson attack.
Update 7:39 p.m. ET
The U.S. Senate is now expected to vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill on Tuesday at noon.
The House passed the bill 269-161 earlier this evening. One of the representatives who voted yes was Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who cast her first vote since she was shot in Tucson in January.
The two-stage deal reached Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders calls for $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade, although the the Congressional Budget Office pegs the savings at $2.1 trillion. It also authorizes an increase in the nation's borrowing limit through the end of 2012. A special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms is also part of the package.
In the first stage, $917 billion in spending cuts will be accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
A special joint congressional committee would recommend a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions. If approved by the full Congress by year's end, Obama could raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. If not, the ceiling could rise by $1.2 trillion, but doing so would trigger matching mandatory across-the-board spending cuts likely to be unpopular with both parties.
The legislation needs to reach Obama's desk by Tuesday at the latest, according to the Treasury Department. If the current $14.3 trillion debt limit is not increased by that point, the federal government wouldn't be able to pay all its bills on time, and Americans could face rapidly rising interest rates, a falling dollar and shakier financial markets, among other problems.
The House passed the bill 269-161 earlier this evening. One of the representatives who voted yes was Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who cast her first vote since she was shot in Tucson in January.
The two-stage deal reached Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders calls for $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade, although the the Congressional Budget Office pegs the savings at $2.1 trillion. It also authorizes an increase in the nation's borrowing limit through the end of 2012. A special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms is also part of the package.
In the first stage, $917 billion in spending cuts will be accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.
A special joint congressional committee would recommend a further $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions. If approved by the full Congress by year's end, Obama could raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion. If not, the ceiling could rise by $1.2 trillion, but doing so would trigger matching mandatory across-the-board spending cuts likely to be unpopular with both parties.
The legislation needs to reach Obama's desk by Tuesday at the latest, according to the Treasury Department. If the current $14.3 trillion debt limit is not increased by that point, the federal government wouldn't be able to pay all its bills on time, and Americans could face rapidly rising interest rates, a falling dollar and shakier financial markets, among other problems.
Update 7:34 p.m. ET
The final tally of the House vote was 269-161 in favor of the debt-ceiling compromise bill. Sixty-six Republicans and 95 Democrats voted no.
The bill goes to the Senate, which is expected to vote Tuesday.
The bill goes to the Senate, which is expected to vote Tuesday.
Update 7:31 p.m. ET
More details on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' dramatic appearance and vote on the House floor - her first since she was shot in January - during Monday evening's vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill:
Giffords, accompanied by her chief of staff, entered to a prolonged standing ovation. She was hugged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Giffords walked to her seat and sat down to vote.
Democrats cheered more when Giffords voted yes, CNN's Deirdre Walsh reported. Pelosi wiped tears from her eyes.
Dozens of Republicans and Democrats mobbed around her, and she stood to greet them.
Giffords, accompanied by her chief of staff, entered to a prolonged standing ovation. She was hugged by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Giffords walked to her seat and sat down to vote.
Democrats cheered more when Giffords voted yes, CNN's Deirdre Walsh reported. Pelosi wiped tears from her eyes.
Dozens of Republicans and Democrats mobbed around her, and she stood to greet them.
Update 7:14 p.m. ET
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Democrat who was shot in the head during a political event in her home state in January, came onto the House floor during the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill. She had been away from the House since the shooting, and was released from inpatient rehabilitation at a Texas medical center in June.
Her colleagues in the House applauded as she returned to the floor.
"Her presence ... brings honor to this chamber. ... Thank you, Gabby," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said on the House floor after the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill, which the House passed a few minutes ago.
Her colleagues in the House applauded as she returned to the floor.
"Her presence ... brings honor to this chamber. ... Thank you, Gabby," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said on the House floor after the vote on the debt-ceiling compromise bill, which the House passed a few minutes ago.
Update 7:06 p.m. ET
[Updated at 7:06 p.m. ET] The U.S. House has passed the debt-ceiling compromise bill. The bill now goes to the Senate, which plans to wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Update 6:50 p.m. ET
The U.S. House has started voting on the debt-ceiling compromise bill. The procedure will take 15 minutes.
Update 6:19 pm ET
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, has confirmed during debate on the House floor that she'll support the debt-ceiling compromise bill, though she lamented that the compromise fails to increase revenue from the nation's wealthy to help reduce deficits
Members of the House Democratic leadership generally had been quiet about whether they would support the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill this evening. The Senate may wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Members of the House Democratic leadership generally had been quiet about whether they would support the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill this evening. The Senate may wait until Tuesday to vote on it, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.
Important Details About Debt Ceiling
– What the accord entails: "A lot of the liberal left, all the liberal organizations, are saying the super committee is going to make Medicare cuts. Nobody's happy. Both the conservative right and the liberal left are very, very unhappy."
– Deadline: Midnight tonight or tomorrow? "Well, that's the big question," King said. "If the Senate holds its vote over, does the administration say, 'OK, you're going to do it sometime during the day tomorrow, we can work it for a couple of hours.' Remember, the president did say he would accept a short-term extension, short-term increase in the debt limit if they had the big framework." If legislators need an extra "24, 48 hours, they could resort to that," he said.
– How legislators feel about the deal: "Essentially the Democrats are saying 'Let's see how many Republicans go forward.' The Democrats are saying, 'Let's let John Boehner deal with his family feud before the Democrats,' " King said. "The Democrats are saying the president sat down at these negotiations and started by giving things away before the game had even started. Democrats are not happy about that," King said.
– Deadline: Midnight tonight or tomorrow? "Well, that's the big question," King said. "If the Senate holds its vote over, does the administration say, 'OK, you're going to do it sometime during the day tomorrow, we can work it for a couple of hours.' Remember, the president did say he would accept a short-term extension, short-term increase in the debt limit if they had the big framework." If legislators need an extra "24, 48 hours, they could resort to that," he said.
– How legislators feel about the deal: "Essentially the Democrats are saying 'Let's see how many Republicans go forward.' The Democrats are saying, 'Let's let John Boehner deal with his family feud before the Democrats,' " King said. "The Democrats are saying the president sat down at these negotiations and started by giving things away before the game had even started. Democrats are not happy about that," King said.
What's the deal in the House?
"First the House passes a rule which lays out how long they will debate this, what amendments can and cannot be offered," King said. "Then they will actually get about to debating the legislation." He said, "They're trying to get the harder vote, the House vote, today."
Obama's Perspective on the Debt Ceiling
President Barack Obama, emerging yet again Sunday night to appeal for public support, named the compromise agreement as an imperfect yet much-needed salve that "will reduce the deficit and avoid default – a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy."
He responded that the deal was configured in a way "that we will not face this kind of crisis in six months, or eight months, or 12 months."
He responded that the deal was configured in a way "that we will not face this kind of crisis in six months, or eight months, or 12 months."
Debt Ceiling: The Plan
The House and Senate are expected to vote Monday on a plan that would lift the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling and avoid an unprecedented default on the nation's debt.
The measure would reduce deficits by at least an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade and create a bipartisan panel to recommend fiscal reform going forward.
The measure would reduce deficits by at least an estimated $2.4 trillion over a decade and create a bipartisan panel to recommend fiscal reform going forward.
Breakdown of the Debt Ceiling
Each and every day, the government spends more money that it takes in. The federal government makes up this difference by borrowing money. Due to this the national debt is increasing second by second. The debt is predicted to reach $14.3 trillion sometime next week.
There's a law on the books — first passed in 1917, updated many times since — that caps the federal debt at $14.3 trillion. This is the debt ceiling.
Some time very soon, the government either has to raise the debt ceiling or stop spending more than it takes in (in other words, balance the budget).
Balancing the budget would mean cutting spending by about 40 percent, raising taxes by a comparable amount, or enacting some combination of massive spending cuts and huge tax increases. (Context: Every penny of discretionary spending, including defense, amounts to about 40 percent of the budget.)
Balancing the budget immediately bears no resemblance to the budget and tax policies passed by Congress in the past few months. It would be a much bigger, much faster spending cut and/or tax hike than leaders of either party are proposing.
Trying to stay below the ceiling could also ultimately force the government to default on its debt, which has never happened in U.S. history. Because U.S. Treasury bonds are held around the world, and are considered nearly as safe as cash, a U.S. default would create economic chaos.
Congress has raised the debt ceiling
nine
10 times in the past decade, according to National Journal. And it seems likely that the current debate over the debt ceiling comes down to what sort of posturing, or negotiating, or whatever, will happen between now and whenever Congress votes to raise it again.
Here's a peek at the debt clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
There's a law on the books — first passed in 1917, updated many times since — that caps the federal debt at $14.3 trillion. This is the debt ceiling.
Some time very soon, the government either has to raise the debt ceiling or stop spending more than it takes in (in other words, balance the budget).
Balancing the budget would mean cutting spending by about 40 percent, raising taxes by a comparable amount, or enacting some combination of massive spending cuts and huge tax increases. (Context: Every penny of discretionary spending, including defense, amounts to about 40 percent of the budget.)
Balancing the budget immediately bears no resemblance to the budget and tax policies passed by Congress in the past few months. It would be a much bigger, much faster spending cut and/or tax hike than leaders of either party are proposing.
Trying to stay below the ceiling could also ultimately force the government to default on its debt, which has never happened in U.S. history. Because U.S. Treasury bonds are held around the world, and are considered nearly as safe as cash, a U.S. default would create economic chaos.
Congress has raised the debt ceiling
nine
10 times in the past decade, according to National Journal. And it seems likely that the current debate over the debt ceiling comes down to what sort of posturing, or negotiating, or whatever, will happen between now and whenever Congress votes to raise it again.
Here's a peek at the debt clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)