Obama ‘Abruptly’ Walks Out of Debt Talks

[kimmielittle]

If you lose your SSI benefits you should thank Obama for it.

SSI is currently cash flowing its benefits from the amounts collected from payroll deductions. The only way it won’t meet its monthly obligation is if the Treasury Department under Timothy Geithner diverts money from the Trust Fund to other government activities (green jobs, Libya, General Motors) instead of using the money for what it is specifically being raised for. And there is no way Timmy is going to do this without Obama’s specific orders to do so.

 

[JMJSHJ]

I’m new here. is it considered rude to ask for sources because no one appears to know what they are talking about. This political nonsense has major consequences. i’d like to know what people are reading. Thank you in advance.

I certainly hope not sub rosa. I think its a sign of an intelligent person who won’t be swayed the left or the right on here!! BTW welcome to CAF!!

 

[mary_bobo]

Oh, please, do you not have Google on your computer or do you think other people don’t?

Just curious, how were Republicans holding anything hostage when they were in the minority in both houses of congress and couldn’t even mount enough votes for a filibuster in the Senate? The Obama Tax cuts were passed in December 2008. There was absolutely nothing that the Republicans could have done to force or stop passage of those bills then.

The very same tax loopholes Obama is crying about now are the ones voted for and passed by the democrats and signed by him.

And while running for president, Obama voted not to raise the debt ceiling, did he not?

 

[JMJSHJ]

Actually I’ve always thought one reason was because Bush the son wanted to get Saddam because Bush the father didn’t. But that’s just me wondering. Peace.

You know I never understood why Bush sr and the Allies left Saddam in power at the end of the FIRST gulf war in the early 90s. Do you think the Allies would have left Hitler in power at the end of WW2? They removed Milosevic as he was a tyrant as well!

 

[kimmielittle]

And while running for president, Obama voted not to raise the debt ceiling, did he not?

As I remember, he did.

 

[SamH]

And while running for president, Obama voted not to raise the debt ceiling, did he not?

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better

.

Obama, a man ahead of his time.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday (July 10) that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity,”

Is Goolsbee claiming Obama was insane in 2006?

 

[Seamus_L]

Watch Obama try to scare the American people in the days ahead if he doesn’t get his way. Serious unrest is coming to these shores and we can thank the cancer that is globalism for it. Until we recognize, multi-national corporations and Wall St bankers as being more dangerous than Al-Qaeda, we will not recover.

 

[kimmielittle]

Watch Obama try to scare the American people in the days ahead if he doesn’t get his way.

I believe, that’'s exactly what Mr Obama meant when he said " Ill take it to the American people"

 

[SamH]

You know I never understood why Bush sr and the Allies left Saddam in power at the end of the FIRST gulf war in the early 90s. Do you think the Allies would have left Hitler in power at the end of WW2? They removed Milosevic as he was a tyrant as well!

Bush senior spent all his time building a coalition against Saddam and was very successful in doing so - in fact too successful. Had the coalition armies invaded all of Iraq we would have had Arab League armies occupying Iraq and I seriously doubt they would have benevolently left the nation after they rebuilt (more likely stripped it of its valuables then drained it of its oil). For that reason they couldn’t invade and occupy Iraq with the forces in place at that time.

As for leaving Hitler in place at the end of World War II, the allies left an even bloodier butcher of a tyrant in charge of half of Germany and all the eastern lands once occupied by Nazi Germany. The US even aided and supplied the country.

 

[gnjsdad]

If you lose your SSI benefits you should thank Obama for it.

SSI is currently cash flowing its benefits from the amounts collected from payroll deductions.

In other words, it is functioning as it was normally meant to function.

SamH:

The only way it won’t meet its monthly obligation is if the Treasury Department under Timothy Geithner diverts money from the Trust Fund to other government activities (green jobs, Libya, General Motors)

as other Treasury Secretaries under other Presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have been doing for decades. Bush 43’s off the books funding of various Pentagon activities comes readily to mind.

SamH:

instead of using the money for what it is specifically being raised for.

I hope you’re not implying that this is an Obama innovation, becaus that’s inaccurate.
They all do it.

 

[stevegravy]

I hope people don’t take this as blasphemy but…… Whenever you read about Jesus at supper He isn’t in the tent of a Bedouin, or some schmuck who doesn’t have enough to eat (the only exception is the miracle of the loaves and fishes.) When Jesus is sitting down to eat He is supping with a rich man or a Pharisee. Even Mary and Martha don’t come off as poor folk, they have a house and enough victuals to accommodate the whole of Jesus entourage. They were not an insignificant group of guys either, as Martha seemed to get perturbed with all the kitchen work and lack of help.

Here are some simple facts:

1. Jesus had always told us to take care of the poor, sick, widow, orphans, naked, thirsty and, jailed. We ought to because that is our duty not the government. However, the jailed are the government’s responsibility because they are property of the state at this point.
2. Jesus never sat down and said how much labor should be paid and how much profit is justified and who should make what. All his parables when wages are discussed is usually about the Father’s in fathomable mercy and love.

Now back to secular business:

Since the administration and all its enablers ( demos and rinos) don’t want to control spending then the only answer is to not let them borrow any more money. They will be forced to cut checks to match revenue. A balanced budget without a balanced budget amendment a miracle.

The whole issue does originate in the miscalculation of both the Bush and Obama administration on how much this war is costing and the persistence of the Jihadies, they are just not going away. On top of that this guy is waging war without consent of congress (oh I forgot bombing Libyans doesn’t rise to the level of a war… my bad.)The guy in his book, The Art of War, commented on how he never knew a kingdom to prosper that was always in a state of war. Well guess what we be broke and now this government needs to figure out what is really important and what isn’t.

That is what BO is all upset about.
Got some hard choices if the republocrats don’t cave like:
Ridicules EPA rules that keep chasing industry off shore and diminish energy production.
Bankrolling a green energy business when the folks with capitol can see no profit in it (because if there was money to be made in it they already be doing it)
His whole Obamacare not getting funded
War on drugs
Subsidizing housing and on and on.
Few billion here a few billion there and soon we will be talking real money to be saved.

 

[gnjsdad]

Watch Obama try to scare the American people in the days ahead if he doesn’t get his way. Serious unrest is coming to these shores and we can thank the cancer that is globalism for it. Until we recognize, multi-national corporations and Wall St bankers as being more dangerous than Al-Qaeda, we will not recover.

There is much truth in what you say. In terms of the economic damage they are poised to cause, they are orders of magnitude more dangerous than Al Queda.

 

[SamH]

as other Treasury Secretaries under other Presidents (both Democrat and Republican) have been doing for decades. Bush 43’s off the books funding of various Pentagon activities comes readily to mind.

Could you name another president that refused to pay social security benefits so they could spend the money on other pet projects?

 

[kimmielittle]

Could you name another president that refused to pay social security benefits so they could spend the money on other pet projects?

Hmmm like Planned Parenthood?

 

[Petite]

Here is an article that is interesting to look at: nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1310573156-WNGxc2KSroE9hAwhwZPRzQ

BTW, this article was written in 2006, nevertheless, this is rather poignant vis-a-vis the current discussion on tax rates:

This conversation keeps coming back to mind because, in the last couple of weeks, I have been on one television panel after another, talking about how questionable it is that the country is enjoying what economists call full employment while we are still running a federal budget deficit of roughly $434 billion for fiscal 2006 (not counting off-budget items like Social Security) and economists forecast that it will grow to $567 billion in fiscal 2010.

When I mentioned on these panels that we should consider all options for closing this gap — including raising taxes, particularly for the wealthiest people — I was met with several arguments by people who call themselves conservatives and free marketers.

One argument was that the mere suggestion constituted class warfare. I think Mr. Buffett answered that one.

Another argument was that raising taxes actually lowers total revenue, and that only cutting taxes stimulates federal revenue. This is supposedly proved by the history of tax receipts since my friend George W. Bush became president.

In fact, the federal government collected roughly $1.004 trillion in income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2000, the last full year of President Bill Clinton’s merry rule. It fell to a low of $794 billion in 2003 after Mr. Bush’s tax cuts (but not, you understand, because of them, his supporters like to say). Only by the end of fiscal 2006 did income tax revenue surpass the $1 trillion level again.

By this time, we Republicans had added a mere $2.7 trillion to the national debt. So much for tax cuts adding to revenue. To be fair, corporate profits taxes have increased greatly, as corporate profits have increased stupendously. This may be because of the cut in corporate tax rates. Anything is possible.

 

[Carlan]

In the end, I don’t see this situation helping the GOP. Though it may be so on this forum, most American voters don’t see ousting Obama and putting the GOP in power as an end in itself. Refusal to compromise makes them look more like part of the problem, especially considering the amount of complaining they were doing about the national debt in the first place.

I’d rather something actually be accomplished then have to wait a couple more years. It’s always just a couple years away, after the next election, then they’ll start reducing the debt. Or maybe after the first reelection, when there isn’t so much pressure to get elected, and on and on.

In my view, these talks gave the ‘right honorable opposition’ a chance to show maturity and responsibility, a genuine interest in something other than sabotaging the incumbant and acquiring power, and has thus far let the opportunity pass by.

:thumbsup:Thanks for this common sense post!
No compromise is juvenile, that is not the way real leaders operate in our Government.
The bull in the china cabinet, Cantor, is looking to be speaker!
The country’s best interest is not what he is about at the moment.
His interest is ideology and power!
Peace,Carlan

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I honestly don’t understand the issue very well but I sure hope that I don’t end up losing my SSI checks, Medicaid, and Food Stamps over this. If I lost those things, I’d be in a major mess. I wouldn’t be able to afford my bills and such.

Holly,

The Federal government takes in about $5 Billion each and every day in normal tax collections.

Social Security and Medicare [and I assume SSI are part of that] cost $2 Billion per day.

Interest on the national debt is about $1 Billion per day.

That leaves $2 Billion per day for the daily expenses of running the Federal government.

And that $2 Billion … almost one trillion per year … should be more than enough to pay for the bills, salaries, etc.

So, basically, there is plenty of money available.

The “problem” is that while the Federal government takes in $5 Billion each day, for the past two years, they have been started spending somewhere around $10 Billion each day. And with Obamacare, it would increase to about $13 Billion.

And they want to spend much more than that.

And a LOT of that “extra spending” has been going for bailouts of buddies … Fannie & Freddie, General Motors, and the Goldman Sachs people.

[We can refine the “daily numbers”. But if they cut back the Feds to the actual amount of money that they collect, then everything would be fine.]

But when you put the actual revenues and expenses on a daily basis, it starts to make more sense.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Holly,

The Federal government takes in about $5 Billion each and every day in normal tax collections.

Social Security and Medicare [and I assume SSI are part of that] cost $2 Billion per day.

Interest on the national debt is about $1 Billion per day.

That leaves $2 Billion per day for the daily expenses of running the Federal government.

And that $2 Billion … almost one trillion per year … should be more than enough to pay for the bills, salaries, etc.

So, basically, there is plenty of money available.

The “problem” is that while the Federal government takes in $5 Billion each day, for the past two years, they have been started spending somewhere around $10 Billion each day. And with Obamacare, it would increase to about $11 Billion.

And they want to spend much more than that.

And a LOT of that “extra spending” has been going for bailouts of buddies … Fannie & Freddie, General Motors, and the Goldman Sachs people.
But when you put the actual revenues and expenses on a daily basis, it starts to make more sense.*

And it could be argued that SS and Medicare need to be overhauled. No doubt this could lead to greater savings or more benefits for people that actually need it.

 

[kimmielittle]

:thumbsup:Thanks for this common sense post!
No compromise is juvenile, that is not the way real leaders operate in our Government.
The bull in the china cabinet, Cantor, is looking to be speaker!
The country’s best interest is not what he is about at the moment.
His interest is ideology and power!

Mr Obama…sit down and eat your peas. please.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Mr Obama…sit down and eat your peas. please.