Hope And Change Part 15

Tagged:  

The Obama administration will begin to tap federal retiree programs to help fund operations after the government lost its ability Monday to borrow more money from the public, adding urgency to efforts in Washington to fashion a compromise over the debt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/treasury-to-tap-pensions-... No union jobs were lost in this cut and paste.

No votes yet

To all you Federal Pensioners who voted for Hope and Change, reach down between your legs and kiss your sweet pension good bye! Don't look at us for restitution. Obummer believes it is his right to take your money.

Mr. Apathy

The pensioners didn't vote for change to their pensions, of course. By voting out of ignorance or apathy, they voted for change in your government services, not their own, which is now (and unfortunately) normal for the USA's voters. However, economics indicate that their pensions must be clawed back eventually.

It's Congress' responsibility to deal with the debt limit. And despite warning signs from the private sector, the GOP will continue to hold America hostage.

Pink Slip

This is a proper description of what is happening:

"Republicans are threatening to create a recession, on purpose, unless Democrats give them a whole lot of unspecified spending cuts."

And these will be our options:

So will [we] stop sending out Social Security checks?

Will [we] stop paying doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients?

Will [we] stop paying the contractors supplying fuel and munitions to our military?

Or will [we] stop paying interest on the debt?

Pink Slip

Tapping Federal Pensions has been done before without issue. This is because the Treasury is legally bound to pay the money back so no one is losing their pension over this.

The problem comes that while they've done this before the money has always made a larger impact. The current rate the gov't is spending at this money barely makes a dent. In all actuality Geithner hit the borrowing limit and decided to borrow more. Essentially he went to a payday loan to pay off a payday loan. It's a viscious cycle and it screws over the taxpayer not the pension holder.

Pink I fail to see how the GOP is holding the gov't hostage. And they are trying to prevent a recession instead of cause one. The Dems plan to raise taxes would undoubtably cause double digit unemployment, further raise inflation, and cause less jobs which would spiral us further to our GDP (already shrinking mind you) to fall faster.

In fact from your own citation "This does not create an immediate crisis, but we can now see a crisis on the horizon." So rather than sit down and cut a deal with the GOP the Treasury Secretary and President decided to borrow more (contrary to the debt limit's intent) and delay the crisis while making it worse. "The Treasury Department has begun juggling the books, taking “extraordinary measures” to avoid a catastrophe. It can keep this up for 11 weeks, giving policymakers until early August to do what they already know they have to do." Juggling the books seems to be the only thing the administration does really well. How many jobs saved or created? That's math for you.

The GOP has said everything is on the table, to include DoD spending cuts, except raising taxes. The Dems refuse to look beyond anything but raising taxes and have yet to offer any discernable plan. So who is actually holding the gov't hostage and forcing a recession???

Plus the article concludes that if the debt limit is not met that SS and Medicare payments will stop. This is false. The GOP leaders have said if it comes to that they will do a limited shutdown of the gov't to allow the payments to still be made while turning off nonessential programs.

MikeyA

"The Dems plan to raise taxes would undoubtably cause double digit unemployment, further raise inflation, and cause less jobs which would spiral us further to our GDP (already shrinking mind you) to fall faster."

All of these claims are outrageously false. Any rudimentary knowledge of history and/or basic understanding of economics belie this statement.

"The GOP has said everything is on the table, to include DoD spending cuts, except raising taxes."

Did they change the meaning of "everything is on the table"? Because it would seem a large portion of the budget equation is in fact "off the table", according to your statement. Democrats (while no rocket scientists themselves) have at least included spending cuts in with restoring some tax rates. The only rational way to address the budget is by looking at spending AND revenues.

Furthermore, if the GOP wants to focus only on cuts they have the power to do so. They can pass legislation in the House with very little resistance. What they doing now, is saying "Give us what we want, or will send the country into another recession".

Pink Slip

It is not a claim it is the truth. If you tax people (and corporations) who are already seeing their dollars shrink due to inflation and you increase their taxes they will spend less and move their money into tax shelters where their taxable income won't be touched. That is a simple cause and effect scenario which we've seen several times in history.

"have at least included spending cuts in with restoring some tax rates. The only rational way to address the budget is by looking at spending AND revenues." Wrong. We are not in this crisis because we didn't collect enough taxes. We are in this crisis because government spends too much.

Just as we saw with the housing bubble when people had too much debt and they juggled the books until it caught up with them the government is doing the same thing. Those homeowners didn't lose their homes because they didn't make enough, they lost their homes because they accrued too much debt. The fact that our government practices the same policy and is still encouraging the behavior shows you how deeply rooted the problem is.

"if the GOP wants to focus only on cuts they have the power to do so. They can pass legislation in the House with very little resistance. What they doing now, is saying "Give us what we want, or will send the country into another recession"." The GOP House already passed a budget. http://themoderatevoice.com/106848/house-republicans-pass-ryan-budget-by... It's the Dem controlled Senate that hasn't. It's still in committee and doesn't seem to be moving. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/161637-budget-from-senate-d... Even there you see that it's the Dems who don't know what to do.... from the article "That same [Democratic] senator also said Conrad might be "slow walking" the budget to buy time for the bipartisan Gang of Six budget talks, which have been ongoing for months."

So that shows it's the Dems who are forcing this to the 11th hour because they have a plan they just don't want to vote on it.

MikeyA

Its official MikeyA you are an idiot! I'm not going to even waste my time and rebut your stupidity. My God man get a grip on reality!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

"I'm not going to even waste my time and rebut" There have been no better words posted to this site.

MikeyA

Then do the right thing.
TAKE ALL OF EVERYONES MONEY. That should make the economy go gangbusters.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I will admit I'm disappointed that Wolfman is not going to respond. I could have easy enjoyed a jibjab or daily show video or a post talking about the price of tea in china.

The truth is the Dems are getting hammered on the economy and the President is facing George H.W. Bush type numbers on his handling of the economy. (Bush 39 being the last President not to win a second term) And the Dems should be scared, some are beginning to realize.

If those numbers persist, I believe it won't matter who the GOP nominee is the President will enter the final months of the election with a huge hill to climb and without the benefit of an enthused base like in '08. Add in that the biggest Dem donors, the Unions, are having to spend millions to prevent bills in WI, IN, OH, TN, MA, CA, and NY and suddenly they have a energy and funding problem.

MikeyA

Inflation is very low right now, and we've had much higher marginal tax rates during economic booms. That's a fact.

"We are not in this crisis because we didn't collect enough taxes. We are in this crisis because government spends too much."

You must be the one person who's never caught wind of the recession we're in. That, along with the Bush/Obama tax cuts are the biggest reasons for the large deficit.

"So that shows it's the Dems who are forcing this to the 11th hour because they have a plan they just don't want to vote on it."

You are confusing passing a budget with raising the debt limit. They are two separate issues. That was my point about the GOP focusing on spending cuts.

Pink Slip

Pink Slip

We have had higher tax rates during boom periods but you are condoning raising taxes in a recession. Doing so will kill the very little job growth we have and force a double dip recession. Of course I wouldn't expect the administration to understand since they saved 4 million shovel ready jobs.

Passing a balanced budget that cuts spening has everything to do with the debt limit. You see when you pay off your credit card you dont need a higher limit.

I am laughing at the absurdity of your comment on the tax cuts. They were passed in 2001. This is 2011. I will agree to do away with the tax cuts if the Dems will agree to passing the '02 budget this year. Of course the Dems won't do that.

You neglected to reference with your deficit graph that it assumes the tax cuts repeal would bring in additional revenue. I have already debunked that in my previos post. They will just move the monie into tax shelters.

MikeyA

"We have had higher tax rates during boom periods but you are condoning raising taxes in a recession. Doing so will kill the very little job growth we have and force a double dip recession"

You sound just like the GOP in the early nineties when we were also coming out of a recession. Of course, they were wrong too. I suppose you don't remember that Reagan also raised taxes during a recession.

"You neglected to reference with your deficit graph that it assumes the tax cuts repeal would bring in additional revenue. I have already debunked that in my previos post. They will just move the monie into tax shelters."

Mikey, in all seriousness--please understand that when tax rates are higher, additional revenue is created. Tax revenues increased 97% during the Clinton administration after he raised the top marginal rates. And he raised taxes coming out of a recession, despite dire warnings from the GOP. And 23 million jobs were created.

Pink Slip

Pink, you're trying to frame the current crisis as because of the Bush tax cuts. We both know that's not the case. The problem has been spending. It took a short recession and extended it.

The fact is you and the Dems are smarmy opportunists. You've had a problem with them since their inception. When you controlled all three elected chambers of gov't you could have rolled them back but you didn't. Why is that? Because they knew what it would do to the economy.

And while it's true we have raised taxes during recessions in the past it is important to note that we weren't in to quote the president "The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression".

And it's important to note that when faced with a similar situation in 1920 we cut taxes and spending. What happened? Wikipedia "Roaring 20's" for quick way to find out.

MikeyA

"And it's important to note that when faced with a similar situation in 1920 we cut taxes and spending. What happened? Wikipedia "Roaring 20's" for quick way to find out."

The 1920s saw a large increase government spending and tax rates relative to pre-WWI levels. For example, the highest income tax rate in 1913 was 7%. In 1925, the highest income tax rate was 25%. Government expenditures were $990 million in 1913 and rose to $3.6 billion in 1925. And that's just the federal government.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Read it for yourself. If FDR would NOT have put the United States into hock to pay for the Democratic socialist programs, the Great Depression would have ended about 7 years earlier.

From UCLA
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression...

From the Wall Street Journal
To the contrary, the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations -- in disregarding market signals at every turn -- were jointly responsible for turning a panic into the worst depression of modern times. As late as 1938, after almost a decade of governmental "pump priming," almost one out of five workers remained unemployed. What the government gave with one hand, through increased spending, it took away with the other, through increased taxation. But that was not an even trade-off. As the root cause of a great deal of mismanagement and inefficiency, government was responsible for a lost decade of economic growth.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122576077569495545.html

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

But FDR wasn't President until 1932. We're talking about government spending and taxation in the 1920s, not the 1930s.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Just wondering if you know what happened to end all that "...large increase government spending and tax rates relative to pre-WWI levels. For example, the highest income tax rate in 1913 was 7%. In 1925, the highest income tax rate was 25%. Government expenditures were $990 million in 1913 and rose to $3.6 billion in 1925. And that's just the federal government."

Why do you suppose the end of the high tax rates relative to pre-WWI levels ended in the Great Depression?

I think you Democrats are totally correct. We should raise taxes right now while Barak Obama is Presdient. It worked so well at the end of the '20's and I am sure it will work again today.

And Barak Obama is just the guy that needs the blame for killing the economy just like high taxes and high government spending killed the economy in 1929.

PLEASE! Raise taxes now before the 2012 election so the worst president in history is booted out of office and so the Republicans take over the Senate too.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"Just wondering if you know what happened to end all that "...large increase government spending and tax rates relative to pre-WWI levels."

We never returned to pre-WWI spending and taxation levels.

"Why do you suppose the end of the high tax rates relative to pre-WWI levels ended in the Great Depression?"

Again, it didn't end. We've never returned to pre-WWII taxation levels.

"And Barak Obama is just the guy that needs the blame for killing the economy just like high taxes and high government spending killed the economy in 1929."

Federal income tax rates were cut by in 1929 and that didn't stop the economic collapse. Probably because the Great Depression wasn't created by high taxes.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

"Pink, you're trying to frame the current crisis as because of the Bush tax cuts. We both know that's not the case."

If the crises you are referring to is our current deficit, then of course the Bush/Obama tax cuts play a large part. That's a fact. Much of the spending increases are a result of the recession that began in 2007. That is also an undeniable fact.

"The fact is you and the Dems are smarmy opportunists. You've had a problem with them since their inception. When you controlled all three elected chambers of gov't you could have rolled them back but you didn't. Why is that? Because they knew what it would do to the economy.

Unless you live under a rock, you know that many liberals are unhappy with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. If conservatives were truly concerned about the deficit, the would also be unhappy with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

"And it's important to note that when faced with a similar situation in 1920 we cut taxes and spending. What happened? Wikipedia "Roaring 20's" for quick way to find out.

Look at the tax rates before the Great Depression, and compare them to the tax rates after the Great Depression.

Pink Slip

It's nice to know pinkslip is keeping up on current events-->

"Republicans are threatening to create a recession, on purpose, unless Democrats give them a whole lot of unspecified spending cuts."

Those "rascally republicans" never give up. The last thing we need now, is for our booming, powerful economy to start to tank. High unemployment, high gas prices, falling value of the US dollar, high food prices and so on, are all things we might start experiencing, if the Republicans succeed. Whatever we do, we MUST prevent the Republicans from creating a recession, as all sane people would agree.

Yep

Yep it's all to blame on 1/2 of 1/3rd of the gov't. That hasn't even been in control of their half of the branch for a year.

But you know who is really to blame. The Popular Front of Judea. What ever happened to him? Oh he's over there.

SPLITTER!!!!

MikeyA

Obama is the best basketball playing president there ever was. I don't think anyone would debate that . Aside from this, he is pretty much a disappointment as president because he is owned by wall street just like his predecessors.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.