Goes to show how out of touch Pelosi is ...

[szh]

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/08/ha ... bt-debate/

So much so that Prez Obama had to remind her of a simple fact ...

Z

[bigbadberry3]

You're going to have to clarify this one for me.

Isn't it possible to raise the debt ceiling by itself and separately address budget issues?

[szh]

Certainly. But, it has been off the table (from an agreement perspective) for a while - which is the point that the article and President Obama make.

Z

[IBCoupe]

I'm on Pelosi's side. You want to balance the budget? Do so in two months when next year's budget is due.

The debt ceiling is a battle over last year's budget. In the political debate, Pelosi's way out there, but that says more about the political debate than it does Nancy Pelosi.

[szh]

I am not postulating that Pelosi does not have a point.

But, bringing a position at the last minute that others (including Democrats and President Obama) have taken off the table some weeks ago, shows that she is out of touch - including with members of her own party.

Or, perhaps, I suppose it could be a grand-standing ploy to regain a semblance of control (that she no longer really has).

Z

BTW, I am in favor of raising the debt ceiling - however reluctantly - because the consequences of not doing so are damn dangerous. So I am not in favor of playing the political games that they are all playing! Politicians are a pain in general ...

[IBCoupe]

Well, there's a misconception that raising the debt ceiling is about future spending. The Republicans are all-too-eager to support this misconception, leading to some speculation that they've got a secret to desire to see the economy and nation flounder in order to win in 2012.

Here's how it works:

Congress passes a budget, and says, "Hey, spend this much money on this many things."

But Congress also passed a debt ceiling law in 1917 (previously, they had required the Treasury to gain approval for every individual item paid for with borrowed cash, but that got unwieldy in WWI), and said, "Hey, before you go borrowing more than $X.00 in order to spend that much money on that many things, come get permission from us." It's a bit conflicting, but it's important to note that it's asking permission to borrow money for the things that we've already committed ourselves by law to buying.

If you're going to wrangle the long-term deficit, the proper place isn't to do it to last year's budget, but to next year's. Which is why I write: "Do so in two months when next year's budget is due."

But if Congress doesn't pass the debt ceiling raise, we've got a Constitutional crisis - Article II of the Constitution says that the Executive (Treasury included) must faithfully execute the laws Congress passes, and Amendment XIV says that the public debts of the United States shall not be questioned. In the event that Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, President Obama may be Constitutionally required to continue spending at the levels that Congress already told him to, and he's Constitutionally required to continue paying at least interest on the debt.

My bet is that the Republicans are banking on not raising the debt ceiling and forcing President Obama to do what the Constitution's going to require him to do anyways (continue to borrow and spend as is necessary to execute the 2011 budget), and then impeach him for it.

[szh]

And, back in 2008, I remember hearing some people argue that the economic issues were deliberately caused by a Democratic majority Congress ... intended to create economic difficulties (a "mild recession") that would cause people to reject the Republican Presidency and vote a Democrat President into office. And that "it got away from them" and was a far worse outcome as a result!

So, I would say that looking for irresponsibly speculative conspiracy theories is all too easy ... and simply not worth it.

Political ploys by Congressfolk and Senators - by either side, is distasteful to me. More often than not (there are exceptions, of course), politicians do not have an understanding of what they take stands on, and not listening (apparently!) to the actual experts is just amazingly irresponsible.

Z

[IBCoupe]

And, back in 2008, I remember hearing some people argue that the economic issues were deliberately caused by a Democratic majority Congress ... intended to create economic difficulties (a "mild recession") that would cause people to reject the Republican Presidency and vote a Democrat President into office. And that "it got away from them" and was a far worse outcome as a result!

So, I would say that looking for irresponsibly speculative conspiracy theories is all too easy ... and simply not worth it.

Not that I buy into the conspiracy theory, but there's a pretty clear difference between "Democrats benefited from the economic downturn and so must have caused it" and "Republicans, by refusing to negotiate, are driving us towards a disaster that would benefit them politically." One is a clear example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and the other is not.

Political ploys by Congressfolk and Senators - by either side, is distasteful to me. More often than not (there are exceptions, of course), politicians do not have an understanding of what they take stands on, and not listening (apparently!) to the actual experts is just amazingly irresponsible.

Z

It is irresponsible. What's worse is that Republicans have Democrats on their knees, and they still won't take "yes" for an answer. Republicans demanded between $2 and $3 trillion in long term spending cuts. Democrats offered $4 trillion, but Republicans turned it down because they would raise taxes, as well. Republicans demanded a plan that had 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. Democrats responded with a plan that was 83% spending cuts and 17% revenue increases, and the Republicans walked away, demanding 100% spending cuts.

Given the time that it takes to craft a bill and vote it into law, coupled with the vacation that Congress is about to take, if we're going to see an agreement, it will have to be this week. Next week at the latest. Do you hear anything that makes you think Republicans aren't going to force President Obama to drive himself to an impeachment proceeding?

[szh]

One is a clear example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and the other is not.

Actually, I heard the theory expressed to me before the actual elections, and it was before the outcome of President Obama being elected. So, post hoc is not applicable in this particular case.

Regardless of which, it was not realistic, of course. Just like the assumption that Republicans are doing this because of any possible political gains right now.

Given the time that it takes to craft a bill and vote it into law, coupled with the vacation that Congress is about to take, if we're going to see an agreement, it will have to be this week. Next week at the latest.

Yup.

Do you hear anything that makes you think Republicans aren't going to force President Obama to drive himself to an impeachment proceeding?

IMHO, it is highly unlikely that this would be the cause of any impeachment proceedings. Certainly not one that would make any headway, I would think ...

Z

[szh]

Republicans demanded between $2 and $3 trillion in long term spending cuts. Democrats offered $4 trillion, but Republicans turned it down because they would raise taxes, as well. Republicans demanded a plan that had 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases. Democrats responded with a plan that was 83% spending cuts and 17% revenue increases, and the Republicans walked away, demanding 100% spending cuts.

What is the source of this info, please? I'd like to read more exacting detail about it.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Here's something about the 85-15/83-17 proposals, which led to the current stance of "no tax increases because we signed a pledge."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... bt-ceiling

Here's the dollar difference:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=15969591

Cantor erred on the high end of the savings range in virtually every instance. The White House countered that the cuts really added up to more like $1.7 trillion, which would leave negotiators $700 billion short of the $2.4 trillion being sought and no bipartisan way to make up the gap.
Democrats suggested that most spending cuts be concentrated in the later years of a deal, but a Republican aide said GOP lawmakers took issue with that suggestion and want the cuts to begin right away.
Obama spent most of his time encouraging lawmakers to reconsider a bigger deal, on the order of some $4 trillion in spending cuts and tax hikes over 10 years. Democrats familiar with the talks said the meeting produced a clearer recognition that the leaders were going to have to go back and think again about how to find a compromise.
Obama has offered to entertain raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 years if Republicans make compromises, including letting tax cuts for wealthy Americans expire at the end of 2012, according to a Democratic congressional aide.

[heliochrome85]

[IBCoupe]

Interesting turn of events today.

This morning, President Obama warns that Republican intransigence puts Social Security payments in jeopardy. Hitting the debt limit means we lose our ability to move money around and can't pay our daily expenses without borrowing on August 2nd. On the other hand, we collect about $12B each day in tax revenues, but, unfortunately, on August 3rd, we're scheduled to send out $29B in SS payments. Math's not going to work out.

This afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell floats the notion of giving President Obama the liberty to raise the debt limit as he needs for the duration of his term as an "escape hatch" measure.

[szh]

What about these words in the article you linked at CNN:

"Before meeting with Obama at the White House, Senate Republicans offered a fallback option to the debt ceiling impasse, proposing three short-term increases in the amount the government can borrow while at the same time registering the disapproval of Congress for such a move.

The proposal would give Obama power to raise the debt ceiling, but also would require three congressional votes on the issue before the 2012 general election. Obama said Monday he would reject any short-term extension of the debt ceiling, as called for in the Senate Republican plan.

McConnell told reporters the proposal was intended to ensure a debt ceiling increase if no agreement is reached to avoid a government default."

So ... just who is being intransigent?

Both sides need to thoroughly examine their motivations!

Z

[IBCoupe]

Obama said Monday he would reject any short-term extension of the debt ceiling, as called for in the Senate Republican plan.

McConnell told reporters the proposal was intended to ensure a debt ceiling increase if no agreement is reached to avoid a government default."[/i]

So ... just who is being intransigent?

Both sides need to thoroughly examine their motivations!

Z

So Republicans can push the country to the brink again in 3 months? No thanks. They'll have plenty to politic on in the Budget negotiations next month, and if Republicans aren't willing to raise the debt ceiling to a level sufficient to support the spending they commanded President Obama to do in April, I'd rather not have the games.

No offense, Z, but I'm getting tired of the "both sides" nonsense in this situation. Both sides aren't just as bad here. They're actually identifiably different: Democrats say, "Work with us," and Republicans say, "Give us what we want." Republicans are holding the line hard on the right, and Democrats keep inching closer to them, sliding away from the center. Some of that is a function of wanting to keep Boehner, a pretty reasonable guy by most measures, as the House Speaker, and not wanting to see him replaced by a whack-job as punishment for behaving reasonably. But it happens on every issue, and at some point, the Democrats have to stand up and say this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmmHPE8EvA[/youtube]

"We will not sacrifice this enterprise. We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They call us un-American and we fall back. They cut revenues and then eliminate under-funded programs and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further! And *I* will make them pay for what they've done."

[szh]

No offense, Z, but I'm getting tired of the "both sides" nonsense in this situation. Both sides aren't just as bad here.

No offense, but I am getting tired of the "Republicans are always the devil" nonsense. In this particular situation, Democrats have also taken hard-line stances (e.g., with their "cannot touch social security entitlements ever" position) that are inconsistent with getting the debt under control in the long run. In tough times, all people need to equally share the burden and all spending (including, e.g., military spending - yes, I, a Republican, am saying that) need to be examined and cut appropriately. Personally, I would be saddened by some cuts (for example, NASA budget trims http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... tter-daily), but pragmatism says this is also on the cutting table.

Of course, the debt ceiling needs to be raised, but unless the spending is also brought under control - without any sacred cows being left untouched - then all we will do is delay the problem. So, it may not be 3 months perhaps, but even having a recurrence 3 years from now is too long, IMHO, because this impasse will be far worse then. Unfortunately, that will still be likely, unless we get close to a balanced budget in the next year or two (or a good plan to get there sometime!).

And, like I have said, if we could separate the two issues with an understanding that the politicians would work together to get the second one done too, then great! But, given the party ideological stances taken by many members, this is not a guarantee - I certainly do not trust the Democrat politicians not to let go of some things (see this statement: "With respect to the ongoing negotiations, Leader Pelosi is committed to finding a balanced, bipartisan package that doesn’t cut Medicare and Social Security benefits." in the link I provided).

If Pelosi committed to putting Social Security and Medicare on the discussion table as well, then I would be more willing to say that it is one-sided, but otherwise, nope, I can see the point being made by others! Hence, the leverage impasse today.

Finally, yes, regardless of "who is the more intransigent" argument, right now, "both sides" need to drop their ideological stances, buckle down and just get the damn job done.

Z

[bigbadberry3]

IBCoupe I'm with you on this one. I see the republicans being the stubborn ones, this time around. They didn't seem to care about bumping the ceiling up at all when we started a few wars and what not. I would have thought that putting some of the entitlements on the table and 4 trillion dollars in cuts (yes over a decade so about 400 billion/year) would be enough to get them to talk about tax increases but of course, it is not. At least Obama is attempting to make legitimate cuts looking down the road even if it upsets his base while Republicans just refuse anything.

[szh]

But, according to the Democrat position, Medicare and Social Security are off the table for cuts, no?

I think everything being up for review for budget cuts is correct - this is the tough position that Greece found itself in ... and had to deal with it eventually

Z

[bigbadberry3]

But, according to the Democrat position, Medicare and Social Security are off the table for cuts, no?

I think everything being up for review for budget cuts is correct - this is the tough position that Greece found itself in ... and had to deal with it eventually

Z

Z,

I think both parties find themselves in this conundrum where the leaders (Obama and Boehner) aren't in lock step with their respective parties and are breaking from their bases to try and accomplish something. I think this is good that for once we might have some real progress but then fear the impasse we've now hit won't allow any thing to be done.

I don't want to be Greece or even Minnesota no offense to those who hail from there but it does not look fun.

[szh]

Yes, I totally agree with that. We have to step away from this precipice - anything else is likely to be a world-wide economic disaster.

I am not an expert on these matters, but what I have read of what could happen makes this silly brinkmanship on the part of our politicians makes me just shake my head in sheer amazement.

Maybe, we just don't effing deserve any better for electing idiots to office!

Z

[IBCoupe]

No offense, but I am getting tired of the "Republicans are always the devil" nonsense.

Nobody has said that. I'm saying they're being f***-wits because they're running the country to the brink of disaster in order to score political points. The Republican Party platform, as of late, has been "Whatever the President wants, we want the opposite," which wouldn't bother me nearly so much if the consequences weren't so dire on this one little thing. Are they always the devil? Of course not. But right now they've got horns on their heads, and not the Jew kind.

In this particular situation, Democrats have also taken hard-line stances (e.g., with their "cannot touch social security entitlements ever" position) that are inconsistent with getting the debt under control in the long run.

No, they're not. Social Security is not adding to the deficit. I'm sure I've gone over this with you in the past. Last year was the first year in the history of Social Security that it had to borrow to make ends meet. And it borrowed $37 billion dollars. We had a budget deficit of $1,600 billion dollars. But even with that in mind, it's still not true. President Obama has offered Social Security and Medicare cuts, and Republicans still say "no."

In tough times, all people need to equally share the burden and all spending (including, e.g., military spending - yes, I, a Republican, am saying that) need to be examined and cut appropriately.

You're aware that Republicans took defense spending off of the table this week, right?

Finally... "both sides" need to drop their ideological stances, buckle down and just get the damn job done.

That's the Democratic "party line" right now, dude. Democrats say, "Here's a compromise," and Republicans reply, "No compromise." That's how the negotiations (I call them that generously) have been going.

I'm not trying to pick on you, Z, because you're reasonable and intelligent. But it seems like you're being misled by someone not on these boards.

[szh]

• Yeah, but any cuts in Medicare and Social Security that President Obama was possibly willing to agree to, would have been rejected by Pelosi and other Democrats. So, I don't consider those real offers.
• I disagree with the Republican stance that defense budgets cannot be cut. All items must be on the table for cutting.
• I disagree with the Republican stance that Bush-era tax cuts must continue. They can lapse and should be allowed to lapse - the amounts are inconsequential really.
• I disagree with the Democrat stance that new taxes must be added/created to balance the budget. Sorry, live within your means first - cut the government outtake to match intake (over a short period of time) and prove that new taxes are really needed.

So ... my requirement for elected officials - perhaps unrealistically hard-line, I admit - is "show me a plan, combined with real action", that has the following features (among others):

• Right away, halts all salary and entitlement increases for government employees for three to five years minimum (I would prefer salary cuts, but ...). If people leave the government for the private sector, do not refill those positions - save the money or spend it elsewhere that have shortfalls!
• Right away, has a hiring freeze for all government - no new hires whatsoever - for three to five years. Only replace people (that retire, die, or quit) as needed after three years have elapsed - if they leave prior to that time, then that leaves funds for overages in other areas.
• Right way, freezes all spending growth and tax rate increases for five years minimum. If something grows in cost in that five years, then yes, consider increasing spending to get the same outcome (number of units, etc.).
• In three years, achieves zero debt growth, i.e., balance the annual budget in 36 months (46 to 60 months at the outside!) and stop debt growth in its tracks.
• In six years, begins reducing the debt ... hopefully government revenue grows as the economy recovers by then. But, absolute no spending growth allowed then either - all revenue growth must go towards debt reduction.
• In six years, re-introduces salary increases - based on merit - that are commensurate with a rational inflation rate. No backwards looking catchups.
• In ten years, reduces the debt (absolute dollars) by at least 10% to 15% minimum - preferably more.
• In twenty to twenty-five years, reduces the debt down to 50% of the current amount - preferably even more.
• In fifty years, has a damn good chance to reduce the debt to $0 ... and I mean "zero" dollars. By using rational spending growth that always stays below revenue growth, so that the excess goes towards the debt for all those years.

That is the legacy I want my son to live in - after I am long dead and gone! It should explain my position and why I post what I post here - they are not influenced by any outside sources or forums. Perhaps unrealistic, but it can be achieved with far less pain that Greece went through - we have a stronger economy and we can do it. If we are all willing to do so.

Z

[IBCoupe]

[*]Yeah, but any cuts in Medicare and Social Security that President Obama was possibly willing to agree to, would have been rejected by Pelosi and other Democrats. So, I don't consider those real offers.[/*]

Citation needed.

[*]I disagree with the Democrat stance that new taxes must be added/created to balance the budget.

They're settling for the elimination of some tax expenditures, Z. Would that be more agreeable to you? Or have you signed onto that silly "any way that the government collects one extra dollar from anyone is a tax increase" pledge?

Seriously, I don't understand it. People like Medicare. They like social security. They like the jobs that come with a bloated military budget. But the minute someone suggests that we ought to raise enough taxes to pay for all of these things that we like, we suddenly aren't "living within our means?" Party of fiscal responsibility my patoot.

[bigbadberry3]

My only sticking point on the taxes is this: Where are the jobs you ? You've had the Bush Era tax cuts and bailouts and yet, nothing.

PLEASE don't argue that it is a bad time to raise taxes. If you ask any person, they will always say it's a bad time to raise taxes regardless of economic climate.

[szh]

Yeah, but any cuts in Medicare and Social Security that President Obama was possibly willing to agree to, would have been rejected by Pelosi and other Democrats. So, I don't consider those real offers.

Citation needed.

Okay ... here you go (with my highlighting to make it clear):

From: http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/08/ha ... bt-debate/

"which is why Pelosi last week demanded a seat at the negotiating table. She has drawn a line – and made it clear to the President – that she would vehemently oppose cuts to entitlement benefits."

From: http://thepage.time.com/2011/07/12/gender-carding/

"Pelosi: Medicare is a "bedrock of security for women and families in our country."

14 other Dem. women members of Congress join minority leader for Tuesday presser on deficit.

And: NCWO call for deal that doesn't include entitlement cuts."

From: http://thepage.time.com/2011/07/11/hoye ... the-table/

"Pelosi: “We continue to oppose benefit cuts in Social Security and Medicare.”"

From: http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/08/na ... she-wants/

"So what does Pelosi want? In general, she wants what liberal Democrats usually want. She wants the rich to pay more taxes. She wants to block drastic rollbacks of government services for the poor and middle class. She wants cuts to spending to be as modest as possible, and cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to be nonexistent."

BTW, here is why ... according to that link:

"Pelosi also has a more personal goal: She wants to be Speaker again. And she thinks that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s unpopular plan to squeeze Medicare has provided the Democrats with a clear path back to the majority, a chance to run as the defenders of Medicare against the Republican marauders."

From: http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/13/de ... tter-daily ... in this one, it is Pelosi's own words, along with 15 other Democrats who would support her stance.

"with fissures between the centrists willing to put all options on the table and the liberals dug in against cuts to entitlement programs. “We must protect Medicare and Social Security. We will not support cuts,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, flanked by 15 women in the Democratic caucus at a press conference"

and

"Preserving programs like Medicare and Social Security is “the core of what we are all about,” said Democrat Kathy Hochul, who sprung an upset in a recent special election in a conservative Buffalo-area district by bludgeoning her Republican opponent for backing cuts to Medicare."

I disagree with the Democrat stance that new taxes must be added/created to balance the budget.

They're settling for the elimination of some tax expenditures, Z. Would that be more agreeable to you?

Yup.

Don't forget what I said in the rest of that item ... that you didn't quote: "Sorry, live within your means first - cut the government outtake to match intake (over a short period of time) and prove that new taxes are really needed."

I don't want a unilateral addition of a new tax "just to balance the current budget", without (a) first cutting spending and (b) properly thinking through whether the tax is really needed.

Or have you signed onto that silly "any way that the government collects one extra dollar from anyone is a tax increase" pledge?

Nope.

If you look at my post more carefully, you will see, for example, that I clearly said: "I disagree with the Republican stance that Bush-era tax cuts must continue. They can lapse and should be allowed to lapse"

Rational closure of tax loopholes and eliminating ways that people can selectively reduce taxes, is always a good idea. (You might remember that I am in favor of eliminating house mortgage deductions for example!)

Z

[szh]

PLEASE don't argue that it is a bad time to raise taxes. If you ask any person, they will always say it's a bad time to raise taxes regardless of economic climate.

Look at what I said more carefully, please.

My words were this: "Sorry, live within your means first - cut the government outtake to match intake (over a short period of time) and prove that new taxes are really needed."

This comes from my belief that balancing the budget and absolute debt reduction is vital to our future. Tax increases may be needed, but not immediately and not willy-nilly - make damn sure that the belt gets properly tightened first!

Z

[telcoman]

My words were this: "Sorry, live within your means first - cut the government outtake to match intake (over a short period of time) and prove that new taxes are really needed."

This comes from my belief that balancing the budget and absolute debt reduction is vital to our future. Tax increases may be needed, but not immediately and not willy-nilly - make damn sure that the belt gets properly tightened first!
Z

So why has this not been done since President Clinton left office with a budget surplus?

How many times was the budget deficit raised under the previous administration?

Why do people that earn $106k dollars pay FICA on 100% of their income and those that earn $212k dollars pay FICA on 50% of their income?

Do you see the problem?

Telcoman

[szh]

My words were this: "Sorry, live within your means first - cut the government outtake to match intake (over a short period of time) and prove that new taxes are really needed."

This comes from my belief that balancing the budget and absolute debt reduction is vital to our future. Tax increases may be needed, but not immediately and not willy-nilly - make damn sure that the belt gets properly tightened first!
Z

So why has this not been done since President Clinton left office with a budget surplus?

I agree that It should have been done. I have never supported deficit spending by the government!

How many times was the budget deficit raised under the previous administration?

I don't know how many times. But, the deficit should not have been raised under President Bush either, IMHO. Did you see me say otherwise ever?

Why do people that earn $106k dollars pay FICA on 100% of their income and those that earn $212k dollars pay FICA on 50% of their income?

Because, social security taxes are not regressive and not based on high income meaning you pay more - both people pay in exactly the same dollar amount. You pay in (per year) the same total maximum amount of money on an individual basis, because that is the calculation driver for what you will (may?) ultimately get back when eligible. So, for some it is a higher percentage of their gross income, and for others, less ... until that maximum amount per year is paid in.

Pretty obvious. And, so your above question is pretty darn irrelevant!

BTW, social security taxes should not be regressive either. Because the payments received when a person retires are not adjusted for how much the person was making when they were paying into the social security system - the payout is pretty much based on what you put in and for how long and when you start taking the payments.

Unlike other income taxes, where the "return on investment" is disproportionately biased against higher income earners (who are thus higher total dollar tax-payers) because of (a) regressive tax calculations and (b) the fact that we pay based on "percentage of income", not based on "per person".

Frankly, social security is one of the few things that the government almost does right: since you get back out based on what you put in more or less. Far more equitable return on the investment than other taxes.

Of course, they then turn around and tax you on that social security "income" (which they didn't used to do at one time, btw!) and since we have regressive taxes, the folks making other income, pay more of a percentage on that "social security income".

Do you see the problem?

There isn't any problem except for what you are artificially making it out to be!

Z

[stebo0728]

Tax hikes - here's my take. Maybe they are needed. Do you want to pay any more tax into a system who's Congress is full of "Paris Hiltons", in love with spending other people's money? Im talking about both sides too. MAYBE if Congress could show some fiscal responsibility, people would be a bit more willing to pay a bit more. I cant speak for anyone but myself, but I would be more open to a tax increase if I thought the extra money would actually help, and not just be wasted, or given to someone too lazy to work for themselves, or spent on some stupid art exibit in some bass ackward town with a populations of 2.4

[stebo0728]

I remember once when I was a teenager, I asked for an increase in my allowance, but all I ever did was blow my money on stupid sh*t. Dad said if I'd show that I could spend the money I was already getting more wisely, then he'd consider an increase.

Thats what I'm getting at. Prove that we can spend what we already take in more wisely, and maybe the funders of America would be a bit more open to funding America a bit more.

I'm not convinced we even need more taxes, I really believe we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We've argued that for months here I know, but I still dont see tax increases, especially in a recession, helping anything. I see it driving unemployment higher than it already is, but not helping the deficit.

Everyone is on this kick of "well people are just going to have to kick in more", but no one wants to say to the people draining the reserve "hey Im sorry but you're just gonna have to receive a few less benefits", ya because that would be "wanting old people and retarded people, or women with cancer, to die" right? Spare me, lets get some reality into the mix, and realize that our budget is wack, some of the side stuff has to go. Even if it comes down to only paying social security to those who've already contributed, and NOTHING else, thats what we do until we can afford to buffer people again.

And as far as the debt ceiling, I'm only for raising it IF we are going to seek a balanced budget amendment. I dont see a defaut, a technical default, as being "armageddon". In fact, I think bond holders would be happier missing a few payments knowing that the life of the bond would survive, rather than keep getting payments now only to see the US crash, and lose the bonds altogether.