SI
SI

 Politics | Politics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
From: KLP7/31/2011 10:18:10 PM
7 Recommendations   of 538041
 
Beldar (see below) has really been ON today....Wish his voice could go to many places.... There's not much We the People can do while Nero fiddles, the Congress fools around, and we circle the drain.....So I'm going to put it on my FB and send to some who might not have seen this or the Rubio and the Paul Ryan comments...


Barack Obama & Co. are themselves history's best argument in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution


I refuse to watch "Meet the Press" — I'd rather be waterboarded — but if NRO's Katrina Trinko accurately quotes former Obama campaign manager and current White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe's statement on that program today, I'm appalled:

White House senior adviser David Plouffe emphasized that the White House is unwilling to accept any deal that does not provide a long-term debt ceiling hike.

“This debt ceiling cloud has harmed our economy. Why on earth would we want to go through this again in the next few months?” Plouffe said on Meet the Press.

Got that? It's not the spending that's the problem, it's the limit on government borrowing to finance more government spending that's hurting the economy, according to Plouffe. Having a statutory limit on the amount of money the government can borrow — even a limit that can be raised by another mere statute, at the behest of simple majorities of House and Senate plus presidential signature — is "harm[ful] to our economy," according to the Obama Administration.

Obama and his party are obviously entirely content to go years without any budget, and now they're bitching about having any debt ceiling, any maximum amount on the national credit card.

So do not be fooled, friends and neighbors, when Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi suddenly pretend to be fiscal hawks, devoted champions of cutting government spending. The entire Democratic Party is still devoted to the same mindset which was revealed by reporting on Obama's first budget efforts back in 2009. As I wrote then, Obama insiders had boasted to the New Yorker that

ased on their "core beliefs," the [Obama Administration's] "smart people" simply decided "what we need to do," and that's how much the federal government will now spend — with no effort being made to base the budget on what revenues the government may take in, and with no "top-line budget number" to limit the appetites of those "smart people" as they set about to vindicate their "principles" by hurling huge chunks of federal cash in their general direction.

The danger is not merely that they're clueless. The danger is that they're still actively and passionately devoted to exactly that which has gotten us into this mess. They are completely unrepentant; they will neither act responsibly nor accept responsibility. And they will keep making things worse until they're out of office, be that in January 2013 or, heavens forbid, January 2017.

This is the strongest argument yet for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

-------------------

UPDATE (Sun Jul 31 @ 3:30pm): Here's some video from the same appearance, although it doesn't include the sentences Trinko quoted. My transcription therefrom (starting at 0:56):

The House Republicans mysteriously — because I don't know of anyone who watches this who would think this is a good idea — wanted us to go through this whole three-ring circus again in four or five months. We're not going to do that because it's bad for the economy.

So I suspect Plouffe not only made the "bad for the economy" remark, but deliberately repeated it at least once. It's today's talking point.

Insisting on compliance with the debt ceiling is "bad for the economy." Refusing to give Obama a big enough bump in the amount that he can increase the deficit to carry him on through the 2012 election is "bad for the economy." Having everyone focused on whether Washington is on a path to national bankruptcy or taking the first tentative steps toward a return to fiscal sanity is "bad for the economy." This is all the Republicans' fault, you see:

It's outrageous that here we are, 60 hours away from the United States of America potentially defaulting for the first time. And the reason we're here is that particularly Republicans in the House, but Republicans generally, have been unwilling to compromise.

Good heavens, the arrogance of this liar!

The "reason we're here" — the reason we're in this national financial crisis — is because the Obama Administration has spent government money at a rate unprecedented in human history, and as recently as February of this year submitted a ridiculous excuse for a budget that would have continued that spending spree.

Could the Republicans' "unwillingness to compromise" merely be an unwillingness to continue down that disastrous path?

Nah, we must be racists.

(Or, perhaps, racist Sith Lords. Nancy Pelosi made a huge point yesterday of accusing Speaker Boehner of going over "to the dark side" for supporting a balanced budget constitutional amendment. Seriously.)

Plouffe even blew off David Gregory's request for an assurance that our troops fighting abroad will continue to be paid timely. That's how heavily invested the Democratic Party is in creating unnecessary fear and turmoil. And that's disgusting.

UPDATE (Sun Jul 31 @ 3:45pm): Here's an MSNBC story that contains the same sentences Trinko quoted, plus a video clip that I haven't watched yet and probably won't. (I'm already at toxic levels in my exposure to Plouffe for one day. I need a shower.)

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2011/07/barack-obama-co-are-themselves-historys-best-argument-in-favor-of-a-balanced-budget-amendment-to-the.html






Posted by Beldar at 02:30 PM in Budget/economics, Obama | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack





Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (438301)7/31/2011 10:18:14 PM
From: goldworldnet2 Recommendations   of 538041
 
I have a feeling that speech will be a classic years from now. Kerry adds a nice backdrop of those we are dealing with. :)

* * *

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

From: average joe7/31/2011 10:35:56 PM
   of 538041
 
First few calls free.

prankdial.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: DMaA who wrote (438269)7/31/2011 10:44:06 PM
From: MJ2 Recommendations   of 538041
 
I like your idea. Now get on the phone and call your Congressman whom I hope is a Republican. If not
call Boehner's office------and also call the RNC, Republican National Committee and ask for the strategy section or some similar title.

Believe it or not you will be heard. That is exactly what I do------you are calling with a solution, not a complaint. Also, throw in the State GOP office and your local County office------this is grassroots activism.

And, be polite and not negative when you call. Occasionally you will see you idea surface------it doesn't matter who takes the credit--------a page from President Ronald Reagan..

mj

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (435678)7/31/2011 11:27:51 PM
From: FUBHO   of 538041
 
Congress is weighing into the roiling dispute between states and giant Internet retailer Amazon.com over collecting sales taxes on online purchases.

July, 30




On Friday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., is expected to introduce legislation that would require Internet-only retailers to add sales taxes to customers' bills, just as their competitors with brick-and-mortar stores do. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., plans to introduce a similar measure in the House.

The congressional effort is aimed at closing a legal loophole created by a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that freed online and catalogue sellers from the obligation of collecting the sales tax if their businesses had no physical presence in the state where a buyer lives.

"Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers by giving a handful of companies a competitive advantage over everyone else," said Katherine Lugar, vice president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association. The Arlington, Va., trade group includes major national chains including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Best Buy Corp.

Introduction of the Durbin bill comes as California and other large states, such as New York, Illinois and Texas, are attempting to enforce new laws that would require Amazon and major electronics retailers to collect billions of dollars in sales taxes that are legally owed to the states. Seattle-based Amazon is suing to overturn New York's law and has started a referendum campaign aimed at invalidating a California statute that took effect on July 1.

Amazon has said it will not collect sales tax on purchases by California customers. But the company on Friday wrote to Durbin and Conyers saying it would support a national effort to create "a simple, nationwide system of state and local sales-tax collection, evenhandedly applied to all sellers, no matter their business model, location or level of remote sales."

States have been working on a federal solution to the Internet sales-tax collection for more than a decade, said Neal Osten, director of the Washington office of the National Conference of State Legislatures. As Congress and the president struggle to cut the federal budget deficit and reduce support for state-run programs, collecting every dollar from the sales tax is a high priority for local leaders that "will not raise one dollar in new taxes," he said.

Osten said there is bipartisan support for the so-called Main Street Fairness Act, which would require states to sign a "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement" before they could require retailers to collect the Internet sales tax.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: goldworldnet who wrote (438303)8/1/2011 12:31:34 AM
From: Sr K1 Recommendation   of 538041
 
I wonder how many people were in the chamber when he spoke for that long on a Saturday? I wouldn't be surprised if there were fewer than 10 Senators there. His speech seemed like a pseudo-filibuster, just filling time.

He spoke arrogantly, as if after 7 months he knows his way around Washington and economics. The speech will be remembered, but it's premature to know for what reason. The ability to speak is important to campaign, but the ability to think is perhaps equally important. What idea or solution, just one, has Rubio developed or proposed since he took office that is new, original, developed or proposed since he campaigned and was elected that was not used in his campaign? Go all the way back to November 2 if you want. Name one. Opposing the ACA doesn't count since he campaigned against it and to repeal it.

In that speech he went as close as any public official I've ever heard or read about to crying "Fire" in a crowded theatre. That portion alone, which he now highlights on his website, was irresponsible.

Over and over new Senators learn you don't arrive in Washington as if you're going to save the country. Hillary Clinton, for one, did that textbook, for quite awhile, working with members of both parties and developed relationships and learned a lot about how Washington and the legislative process work. And she was not an outsider.

Now, on Rubio's site, at
rubio.senate.gov 

he says, "Right now, forty cents of every dollar the federal government spends is being borrowed from future generations. This is unacceptable and a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable. We need a government that stops spending more money than it takes in."

That shows he doesn't know what he's talking about. And that he wants to crash the economy. He wants a balanced budget right now. He says "a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable" but he should know that it is going higher every year until we have a surplus. All projections are that there will be trillions of deficits before we reach a balance for a full fiscal year.

If he says "a $14 trillion debt is unsustainable", what (to him) is
a $15 trillion debt, a $16 trillion debt, or a $17 trillion debt?

He's uncomfortable with the subject.

And as an a aside, when IBM borrows money in the debt markets, does anyone on this thread think that they are borrowing from future (or even current) customers, or from "future generations" of customers? Of course not. They borrow in the debt markets because it reduces their cost of equity capital. They choose to leverage their balance sheet to increase returns to equity holders including buying back equity before they otherwise would have the cash to do so.

The United States also borrows in the debt markets based on its cash flow.

I expect FUBHO or steveharris will argue that the Fed is distorting the debt market and the interest rates the U.S. pays.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: FUBHO who wrote (438306)8/1/2011 12:49:21 AM
From: RinConRon   of 538041
 
Biden Charges Secret Service Rent to Use Cottage Next to His Home

Published July 31, 2011 | Associated Press


advertisement



WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Secret Service is charged with protecting Joe Biden and his family, but the agency is also charged $2,200 a month to rent a cottage next to the vice president's Delaware home.

Records show Biden has collected more than $13,000 since April on the cottage in Greenville, a wealthy Wilmington suburb, and is eligible for up to $66,000 before the contract expires in 2013.

Asked if the Secret Service typically pays rent to those it protects, agency spokesman Edwin Donovan told The Washington Times, "It's a rental property so we pay rent there."

Citizens Against Government Waste's Leslie Paige says the agency should do all it can to protect Biden, but one would think the vice president who shepherded the deficit committee would think twice before charging the agency.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/31/biden-charges-secret-service-rent-for-using-cottage-next-to-his-home/#ixzz1TkWlmjEu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ManyMoose who wrote (438143)8/1/2011 1:03:18 AM
From: TimF   of 538041
 
That's my general thought on such things. Set high standards and then make the candidates meet the standards, don't make it easier because one group or another finds the standards difficult.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: KLP8/1/2011 1:06:17 AM
2 Recommendations   of 538041
 
Beastly Compromise? From the UK's Globe and Mail....










Margaret Wente

Debt-ceiling chicken and the end of empire

MARGARET WENTE | Columnist profile | E-mail

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jul. 30, 2011 2:00AM EDT

You can’t help but be depressed by the game of debt-ceiling chicken being played in Washington.

The greatest nation in the world is paralyzed by something that used to be a meaningless ritual. The nation’s credit rating is at risk. Barack Obama – the man who became president because he promised to build bridges and restore America’s hopes and dreams – looks helpless. In a burst of rhetorical excess, all sides are threatening disaster, depression and Armageddon. Let’s just hope they don’t drag us all down with them.

More related to this story

America's fiscal mess offers long-term opportunities for Canada Will Americans ‘do the right thing’ on debt? It’s evening in America


    Photos

    Beastly compromise?

    I used to think America would solve its problems, after all else failed. Now I’m not so sure. The political class is looking more dysfunctional than ever. This is a manufactured crisis in which hardly anyone can understand or explain the ins and outs.

    The debt limit has been raised 10 times in the past decade as the country increased spending by 60 per cent. The Democrats used to vote against raising the limit when the Republicans were in charge. This time, the Tea Party started it, but everyone has tried to capitalize on the brawl. They’ll probably resolve it at the last minute with a minimalist deal that kicks the can down the road, thus ensuring they can slug it out all over again the day after tomorrow.

    But the underlying issues will still be there, even if the Tea Party vaporizes. Which raises the question: If they’re so deadlocked over a phony crisis, how can they possibly address the real ones?

    The only thing that unites the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington today is their mutual desire to suppress the truth. Nobody wants to come clean about how deep the fiscal hole really is. None of the players trying to negotiate a deal has anything to say about entitlement programs such as social security, Medicare or Medicaid. Together, these account for more than 40 per cent of all federal spending. All sides are silent on what Robert Bixby, executive director of the non-partisan watchdog group Concord Coalition, calls the underlying structural deficit. Even the toughest version of the deals on the table will shave less than one-half of 1 per cent from the entitlement spending that’s mandated over the next 10 years.

    These gigantic spending programs are the IED down the road for every Western nation. An aging society means the costs of these programs are set to explode. Yet, both sides in Washington cling to the magical belief that all will be well if only we adopt their simple-minded solutions. Repeal tax cuts for the rich? By all means! That would raise $700-billion over the next nine years. Unfortunately, the projected deficit over the same period is $10-trillion. Cut spending? Absolutely! But you can’t have smaller government without smaller entitlement programs.

    Democrats believe that more spending and tax increases will fix everything. Republicans believe that less spending and more tax cuts will fix everything. No one wants to say that benefits to aging boomers will have to take a hit, no matter what.

    As it is, the U.S. is turning into a tyranny of the gerontocracy, one willing to sacrifice its grandchildren so the oldies can live comfortably in their Florida condos as they consume vast quantities of high-tech health care in a futile effort to extend their lives forever. As the thinker Walter Russell Mead puts it, the U.S. health system marries the greed of the private sector to the ineptitude of government. This health-care industrial complex will soon account for one-fifth of the economy. Most health care is consumed by seniors. This isn’t a formula for national greatness.

    At least economists generally agree on how to fix the entitlements mess. (Cut benefits, raise taxes.) The problem is, it’s politically impossible. Where economists disagree is how to fix the jobs mess. The official U.S. unemployment rate is pleasantly deceptive, because it disguises the fact that one in five men aren’t working. As Fortune’s Nina Easton writes, 20 per cent of all American men are “collecting unemployment, in prison, on disability, operating in the underground economy, or getting by on the paycheques of wives or girlfriends or parents.”

    American companies are creating millions of jobs. The trouble is, they’re not in America, which is an increasingly uncompetitive place to do business. The biggest manufacturer of electronic goods in the world is the Taiwanese-based giant Foxconn. It employs nearly a million people – that’s more than the worldwide work forces of Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and Sony combined.

    The rate of job creation in the U.S. is so slow that, at the current pace, unemployment won’t recover to pre-recession levels until 2020. Meantime, there are two job markets – one for the highly skilled and one for everyone else. Unlike the entitlements mess, there’s no consensus among economists for how to stimulate job growth.

    I’ve no idea how to fix these problems, or to what extent they’re fixable at all. All I know is, they won’t even get mentioned so long as the political class consumes itself in destructive wrangling. The greatest nation in the world is unable to address its greatest challenges. And that’s the real tragedy of the faux catastrophe in Washington

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: FUBHO who wrote (438297)8/1/2011 1:28:24 AM
    From: KLP2 Recommendations   of 538041
     
    I like Harsanyi's optimism, but I don't know if we should be very joyful tonight...

    So…the Parties agreed. But will it pass both houses? Will Moody’s still downgrade the US? How is it the US citizens can’t see that spending $1-3 TRILLION dollars more each year than we take in, and MAYBE even cut spending by $1 Trillion over TEN Years…. Is going to help anyone?

    OR is it way too many of our Senators and Representatives don’t understand that? Hang on to your hats everyone… I fear this doesn’t bode well for America, nor the world. But then, WDIK?

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.