In Fiscal Wars No Negotiation Is a Negotiating Tactic

Stop talking and start legislating might be a good idea.

So. Boehner “wants to stick with the constitutional way of doing things, with hearings and bills that are debated on Capitol Hill rather than hatched by the vice president and Senate Republicans?”

Then maybe Boehner and Congress should have not thrown the ball to them and waved their hands in the air hopelessly.

Nickleby, read the U.S. Constitution. You are very, very wrong.

Obama wants blank checks from all of us. Makes one wonder if he isn’t doing all this deliberately. Forward!

BRIAN: “Nickleby, read the U.S. Constitution. You are very, very wrong.” – - – HOW? EXACTLY how is NICKLEBY wrong? Don’t just toss out an empty opinion. Please quote and cite the relevant parts of the Constitution and then provide a rational explanation for how NICKLEBY is wrong. It seems to me that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment is quite explicitly clear when it states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Consequently, it appears the President can take appropriate steps to ensure that there are ZERO questions about the validity of our public debts that Congress has ALREADY authorized by law.

People like BK-Knightrider are the reason this country is going down hill.

“No Negotiation Is a Negotiating Tactic” – Z Wolf

This sounds like a media driven way to give the impression that Barry has negotiating skills that he doesn’t possess.

“People like BK-Knightrider are the reason this country is going down hill.” – NewCountryMan

I’d like to mail BK Burger a pocket constitution in the hopes that he/she would read and comprehend it.

If you think borrowing all this money is OK, approximately .40 cents of every dollar we spend, then try it in your personal lives and see how that work for you!!!! Make $4000 a month? Spend it all, and borrow and spend another $1500…every month..!!! See how long you last!!!!

Obama thinks he’s still living in an ivory tower, where economic theory is never tested!!! The clown has never had to balance a budget or run a company!!!

He just always demanded more government handouts, that’s been his life’s work!!!! He and his friends at ACORN!!!

So, honor your debts. But don’t make more.

There’s a big difference between incuring debt and paying debt.

Raising the debt ceiling once again should not take place without a serious discussion and action on spending. It makes no sense to keep raising the debt ceiling with no change in reckless spending. The question of spending has NOT been addressed, but rather only smoke and mirror long-time (10 years to infinity) reduction of the debt. That will not cut it and Republicans would be irresponsible should they fail to bring this to resolution. A nation cannot continue to spend more than it takes in and raising taxes, Obamacare taxes and continuing useless, ineffectual departments is not a good idea either. Some say not raising the debt limit would endanger the faith and credit of the U.S. Not addressing excess spending will have a greater effect on the long term.
While the federal government is at it, they might consider two other important elements in addition to the pumped up executive branch and the legislative branch and judicial branch; the individual states and the citizenry, and please show Constitutional authority for many of the stupid things and functions being usurped by the federal government over the latter two.

16+ TRILLION in debt, You really think they can fix that!

Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. “We the People” trusted them to take care of our business, not run it into the ground. Any reasonable tax payer can see it can’t be fixed. All the brains at the major universities agree, collapse is inevitable. So what do we do? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Look at their past record. Better prepare, because the worst is yet to come.

I hate to warn everyone, but we’re only one Supreme Court justice away from Premier Obama.

Nice Kennedyesque propaganda photo. Let all the trolls sing praises.

oops, should be given

Lets argue with facts instead of made up stuff: for the last few presidents, here is the amount they raised the debt. Regan 189%, Bush 55%, Clinton 37%, Bush 86%, Obama 35%.

I love how Republicans supported waging two wars AND cutting taxes for the rich under Bush, as well as almost destroying the WORLD’S economy, and then suddenly have a conscience about our debts now.

Visionquest, you want to argue with Newcountryman with facts? It’s not his forte.

“Yes, through the congressional budgetary process” If Congress proves itself unable to function with that process, the President has no choice. And he has the power.

It is better to exercise it than let the Tea Party lunatics do even more damage to our country.

For four years now they have cheered every setback for the US and tried to block every advance. Enough.

K. No one can unite people who won’;t even make the attempt. Settle for just uniting the sane ones.

It sure reads like Newcountry has started turning on the shock jocks for his “news” lately.

So it’s agreed then; massive cuts to the biggest burden on the American taxpayer, the defense budget… and leave grandma’s lumbago meds alone.

Posted by: Jeff | January 5, 2013, 9:53 am 9:53 am

Social programs dwarf defense spending. Cut that first, especially yours.

It is very simple what is going on here. The GOP is ‘creating a crisis’ with the debt ceiling that has never been done before. We have all ready ‘incurred the debt’. All we have to do is agree to pay those we have incurred the debt with. This is simply about the ‘full faith and credit of our nation’. What the GOP is threatening to do is very much like ‘blackmail or extortion’. They are threatening destroying our economy and the lives of middle class people by introducing a ‘subject’ that has absolutely no place here. Spending and tax structure reform…are separate topics. And if you people who are consistent Faux Noise watchers and Rush listeners would get educated…they wouldn’t be able to fool you so easily. Wake up people. The very ‘wealthy’ who just made out like bandits once again…control the narrative of your media sources.

A propaganda delivery system for socialists. Thanks, ABC.

Nice Kennedy brothers propaganda photo. Thank you, ABC.

“You can’t solve a debt problem with more debt.”
Posted by: K | January 5, 2013, 10:00 am

My credit card company didn’t believe me when I told them that I was going to pay down my balance by spending more. They’re just too stupid to understand Obama-nomics.

and I’m referring to democrats by the way incase any democrat here is too stupid to understand who I’m referring to.

We’ve already cut.

Posted by: lexingtonlady | January 5, 2013, 10:09 am 10:09 am

LOL! Really? What have we cut? We’re running $1+ trillion deficits every year.

republicans should say this: Mr President your spending like a drunkin sailor are over. You got your tax increase on the top 2% not a penny more will you steal from some to give to others, you tax us enough already. We will raise the debt limit to match the interest payment only, nothing more, nothing less. We wont default and the president cant spend more than he already takes in tax revenue.

I love the one tal;king about “Faux” news as if the MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS that they watch/ and listen too is giving them some kind of honest accurate non-biased reporting. Any lib who tries to predictably play the fax news card instantly loses credibility and [paints themselves as a hypocrite because the automatic assumption becomes they watch all of the liberal mess. The only way to get all the real facts is to watch ALL of the channels, listen to talk radio and use the Internet. After about a couple of dozen input sources you learn what is truly fact and what is truly fiction if a person’s brain filter actually is working soundly. Most of the lib I hear are only sounding boards for the left-wing news channels and do no independent research. If they did, they would probably appear more towards the middle in their opinions versus sounding like they have an Obama prayer alter in the corner of their basement lit up by candles

It is hard to reason with children like the immature Obama Democrats.. The Republicans approach the nations problems by assuming the Obama Democrats love this country and want our economy and freedom to recover. THE OBAMA DEMOCRATS DO NOT LIKE THIS GREAT COUNTRY!! THEY SEE UTOPIA AS A SOCIALIST COUNTRY WHERE THE BOTTOM FEEDERS TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE TOP PRODUCERS!! The Obama Democrats will be protesting and carrying union made signs and pitching hissy fits for the cameras–but unfortunately the Republicans will have to ignore the hissy fits and once again be the adults in the room. I am stunned at how gullible this new breed of Obama Democrats really are –yet the ironic thing is they believe they are sophisticated!!! The only way a BIG BLOATED SOCIALIST government can control the economy is to control the people; but then again the sophisticated among us surely know that. (WINK WINK)

And the idiot Joe Biden thinks he’s now a rock star.POSTED BY: NEWCOUNTRYMAN | JANUARY 5, 2013, 8:07 AM 8:07 AM
President Obama biggest ambition is to become a pin up model, so what else is new.

Librarian 53 said–”Dalmation, what will reduce our debt is to increase revenue, which will happen automatically as our economy grows.”———–THE ECONOMY WILL NOT GROW (increase revenue) WHEN THE BIG BLOATED GOVERNMENT RAISES TAXES WHICH LOWER YOUR PAYCHECK SO YOU HAVE LESS TO SPEND —JUST LIKE BUSINESSES WON’T HAVE MONEY TO EXPAND OR HIRE IF THEY HAVE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON PAYING MORE TAXES!!!

Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 10:31 am 10:31 am

Again, you can’t solve a debt problem with more debt. Taxes are going up and cuts are coming. Nobody escapes.

Librarian53″: Have you read all of those bills? You do now that sometimes politicians on both sides include line-items in their bills that are unrelated. Wopu;d you vote for a bill you agreed with 75% of the bill but not all of it because you thought the other 25% was detrimental. Unless you have read the bills and can give us the honest reason a republican didn’t vote for it versus making it sound like they didn’t vote for it because they were un-American then you are perpetuating liberal propaganda and skewing the facts

McConnell and his thugs are once again holding their NRA approved assault weapons to the head of middle-class Americans. They want spending cuts from everything, except of course, the military, oils subsidies, and corporate deductions…the usual freebies for the 1% can not be touched.

Remember this voters…These extortionists need to be tar and feathered in the 2014 elections.

“Dalmation, what will reduce our debt is to increase revenue…”
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 10:31 am

France is trying that, and Frenchmen are applying to become Belgians. California is trying that, and Californians are becoming Texans.

What’s next, put a wall with watchtowers around the country, not to keep illegals out, but to keep Americans in? East Germany anybody?

Our ‘spending’ as a percantage of the GDP has actually decease by 3% over the past three years. From 10% to 7%. And that is how the ‘truly intelligent’ debate this issue. The problem we have? Too many people in the middle class without jobs, sitting on the sidelines. We didn’t and aren’t spending enough money…to get these people working again. And who is ‘benefiting the most’? the wealthy who are STILLNOT paying their fair share in a nation of unemployed and a CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE that they get the mostout of. The ‘self cretaed debt crisis? Was created by those who KNEW their ‘sheep’ would not understand these issues and would confuse ‘short term debt’ with a long term improvement plan to the economy and their middle class lives. They count on these people being short sighted…and dumb.

I love how right wingers whose only knowledge of ANY of this comes from the media spend all their time attacking the media.

No dudes. You just read a different part of the media. And you don’t like the one that disagrees with you.

“Spending has gone up and up since the downgrade. Why hasn’t our credit rating been restored?” Because it’s not about spending, it’s about credibility. And as soon as Congressional Republicans said it would not matter to them if we defaulted on our national debts, incurred mostly under Bush, we lost that. The rest of the world doesn’t care about our spending. They care about us paying them back what we OWE them.

Sorry, premmy, NO HE CAN’T. A third world dictator can. But, no, the president of the United States can NOT. Regardless of how much you adore him…

No negotiating by Obama and No Compromise by the GOP both mean the same thing: no democracy. We’re not only at the point where the only people who don’t need an appointment weeks ahead to see their Congressmen are the Special Interests, we’re at the point where it’s one Special Interest against another. We citizens are treated like the Horseshoe Crabs caught off the Atlantic Coast of Delaware and Maryland. Their blood has a unique compound used in medical tests, but only 25% of their blood is removed so that most of them will recover to be bled again another day. We’re bled just enough so that we can continue functioning – and redistributing our wealth to the top 1%.

torrentshell must get all of his information from divine inspiration. Let me guess he speaks to Obama personally. It’s obvious he only listens to MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS and that he does no independent research. To be truly informed AGAIN here is the formula: Watch all of those AND Fox AND talk radio AND use the Internet to look at both left and right wing sites AND research the official government documents (proposed bills, etc). EVERYTHING IN ALL MEDIA SOURCES is biased and editorialized. You may have one side accuses the other for not voting for a bill but what you won’t hear is that maybe they would have except for a small clause in the bill they disagreed with. That’s like accusing a politician of not caring about women’s rights because of not voting for a liberal ‘women’s rights” bill that maybe had one sentence or clause in it that was disagreeable. If I was a politician any bill I voted on I would have to 100% agree on… not 80%, not 90%, not 99%. But guess what even if I conceptually agree with 95% of it but vote no due to the other 5%, [politically the other side would accuse me of being against it as if by voting no that meant I was against the whole thing. You have to look at these things before lobbing accusations people. On this fiscal cliff thing, I guarantee 90% of the people here posting has not looked at root sources of any of it. They haven’t read any of the actual proposals word for word on either side for themselves. They are relying on the media to do that for them.

“Our ‘spending’ as a percantage of the GDP has actually decease by 3% over the past three years. From 10% to 7%. And that is how the ‘truly intelligent’ debate this issue.”
Posted by: CND FOX | January 5, 2013, 10:53 am

Year GDP Spending Spending/GDP
2004 $11,853,300,000,000 $2,292,800,000,000 19.34%
2005 $12,623,000,000,000 $2,472,000,000,000 19.58%
2006 $13,377,200,000,000 $2,655,100,000,000 19.85%
2007 $14,028,700,000,000 $2,728,700,000,000 19.45%
2008 $14,369,100,000,000 $2,982,500,000,000 20.76%
2009 $13,939,000,000,000 $3,517,700,000,000 25.24%
2010 $14,508,200,000,000 $3,456,200,000,000 23.82%
2011 $14,958,600,000,000 $3,603,100,000,000 24.09%
2012 $15,601,500,000,000 $3,538,000,000,000 22.68%

Many folks would have us believe that the debt does not matter. Just keep spending and sooner or later things will work out. Well, if the debt does not matter, why pay it? You have to pay it because China wants their money. I think we are borrowing something like $250 million per hour. If the debt does matter, Mr. Prez, what are your plans to reduce it? It either matters or it does not matter..or to the Progressive mind, perhaps it matters just a little bit as it depends on whose ox is being gored. Final question, Mr. Prez, if the debt does matter why will you insist on raising the debt ceiling? If it does matter, why don’t you tell Harry to balance a budget…for the first time in your tenure? You are one confusing individual. The old Peter Principle may be in play here..sooner or later everyone reaches their level of incompetence.

This is a red herring. What does Obama really want?

So the only retort from Obama supporters is people who disagree withthis insanity must be Fox News fans, or that it’s OK because Bush started two wars. It figures.

Choppy Seas, no one is saying the debt doesn’t matter. But we need to reduce it in a way that doesn’t decrease jobs or hurt the economy or that will fuel more debt.
Can I ask you if you objected to the Bush Tax Cuts while we had two wars going? Did that make any sense?

“I specifically said increase revenue by increasing jobs.”
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 11:21 am

No, you said that passing a jobs bill would increase jobs, which would increase revenue. The problem with that, is that government rarely succeeds in doing what it intends to do. Look at welfare and food stamps -if it did what they intentended (what they publically say they intended) then there would be fewer people on welfare and food stamps. Instead, they try to get more and more people on the programs.

If government really wanted to create jobs, they should just back off regulations that so many businesses have to devote so much time complying with. Instead, government creats a program which government oversees, and government controls. They don’t want to create jobs, they want to micro-manage the economy, and that gives you 8% unemployment and a never-ending recession.

“The big-spending Republicans got tossed out on their ears in 2006 and 2008. What? You thought they lost because they were too conservative? No, they lost because they started spending like Democrats, so their Republican base decided to stay home.”….. They started this trend during the Reagan years. Did it take you that long to realize you had issues? You kept putting them back in. You’re still trying to do it. Here is how this works. You’ll try to stack it all con and they’ll begin again. It’s like Lucy and Charlie Brown. Before Reagan we were the largest creditor nation in the world. You guys blew that. Yeah the left spends. But they have a tendency to pay for it more.

Librarian: Apparently the Dems thought those tax cuts were wonderful. People also forget the tremendous amount of money those wars generated…they paid for a lot of govt salaries as well as contributing billions to the private sector. Now, it’s another argument about whether the wars were necessary or not….OB himself said Afghan was a “war of necessity.” For now, I am talking only about money. As Harry Truman (that good ol Dem) once said when his economy was in the tank…”What we need is another good war.” So, if spending is the solution, as so many believe, those two wars were great. On one hand you argue about Greece’s austerity but also complain about spendig govt money….on things you think are not good. However, money is a very unemotional thing…it does not care.

That was brilliant Roscoe. Shallow and argumentative with no substance, but it shows that the topic at hand is sometimes typically ignored by pure Obama supporters. This supposedly sweeping power grab by Obama is nothing more than some kind of smoke screen for future negotiations. I’m wondering who is pulling Obama’s strings because he doesn’t have the background to make a valid argument here.

“The 14th amendment simply says government debts are valid and must be paid. What the house is saying, is that unless the democrats sit down and negotiate some sensible spending cuts, they will not agree to borrow any more money. Existing debts will still be paid, but Obama will have to stop spending money he doesn’t have, and congress didn’t authorize he spend. Obama has operated without a constitutionally required budget for four years. This year he will spend 48 cents of every dollar he spends, yet he refuses to “compromise” Well I have news for him. He doesn’t have the constitutional authority to borrow money without Congress permission, period.” Well said. I will add that all bills pertaining to spending constitutionally are voted first in the HOUSE so they have all of the constitutional [power here.

“we know how lowering regulations works out. Oil spills and banks ruining our economy…”
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 11:44 am

Oil companies are under-regulated? The truth is that oil spills happen despite government regulation.

The housing crisis was caused by a lack of government regulation on the banks? Au contraire, the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give loans to people who shouldn’t have had them.

Oil spills happened despite government regulations, and bank collapses happened because of government regulations -yet, just like a big government proponent, all you can see is where government fails, more government is required. To you, government never fails, it just fails to do enough.

DID Obama thank George Bush yet for the Bush tax cuts??? I mean let’s be honest these tax cuts jump started the economy so I expect he will be making a big speech thanking George!! Oh wait Obama and Michelle are on an extended Hawaiian vacation right now which cost the American taxpayer $4,000,000.00 dollars; so I guess the thanks will have to wait. We certainly do not want to interrupt his $4 Million dollar vacation–I am sure you would not want to be interrupted on your lavish vacations that someone else is paying for…

“The problem with increased people on welfare and food stamps isn’t because those programs exist, it is because of a job shortage.”
Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 11:44 am

Then why is the U.S. Government advertising in Mexico, informing Mexicans how to apply for benefits in the United States?

Why did Obama cancel the welfare-to-work program?

They want as many people dependent on government as possible. The more people they have on the rolls, the bigger their budget is, and the bigger their departments become.

I can’t remember the last time a bureaucrat got promoted for doing less, but Washington is full of them who want to increase their responsibilities.

I’m done with this. Everyone, I’m sure, knows how I feel about it.

of course PLUS Clinton’s executive orders… can’t blame any republicans in congress for executive orders now can you?

Dalmation, repeating far right myths doesn’t help your argument. Do you or don’t you approve of tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs? Because House Republicans keep blocking the bill that would end it.

So repeating the far left myths doesn’t help your either.

Negotiations on taxes is not over. The tax code has to be reformed to remove the obscene loopholes that billionaires enjoy. That is something McConnell needs to keep in mind.

“Obama is a dictator!”

POSTED BY: IRISHROSE | JANUARY 5, 2013, 7:29 AM 7:29 AM_______________Not true!

Do you just love the math of the left? Bush left office with $10T in national debt. Obama has taken that to $16.4T (as of this week) but that’s only a 35% increase according to one liberal genius in this board. I guess I did a different brand of math. He’s not even close to being down with his spending tirade.

maybe they are too long for libs to understand? “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.” is the error message I keep getting

Obama’s brand of “leadership” never ceases to amaze. King Obama forgets that our truly brilliant Founding Fathers created three branches of government for OUR protection. Obama doesn’t care and has taken arrogance to a new level. God, let’s get to 1/20/13 so we can begin the countdown already. This bozo will legislate with executive orders and continue with the Bush policies he derided when he was a candidate. Why is it that no one on the left takes him to task on this? Cowards all.

No negotiating is right! NO MORE raising the debt ceiling! Deal with it, Obama!!

Last year my employer health insurance went up, yesterday I noticed that my paycheck shrunk and I am not even middle class…Obamacare will affect us in any manner. I wish I could who does the President is protecting when he talks about middle class folks.

If every household in America budgets and spends wisely (per the liberal) then why have Obamacare? Per you it is unnecessary because everyone’s so responsible. Which is it? you can’t argue both ways my liberal friend

“I’m done with this. Everyone, I’m sure, knows how I feel about it.”

EXACTLY!!! That’s why we know it has nothing to do with the debt! Let’s be clear here… had the President not stepped up to the plate to do his job (literally about two years ago) instead of living on some fantasy island thinking that “they” will do what’s right for the Country and we can all sing kum-byah together, he would have lost and lost BIG. He finally got down to doing the business of the people and has earned a second run. Make no mistake he now knows the beast that he must deal with. Hell! It took him LONG enough!!! He should use every avenue available to him to move our Country forward for the good of our Country and all its peoples. To HELL with you naysayers!!! Your hatred is so blinding that you make things up, create polls to suit your beliefs, …just plain lie to yourselves!!! We don’t have time and can’t be bothered.

The last great Democrat was Reagan… then he had to and become Republican on us and wise up.

I’M GAY! There I’ve said it. Sorry Mom and Dad

Earth to Obama: that is NOT a tactic, that’s a tyranny. What you’re doing is strong arming fascism like a rogue nation dictatorship.

Do you or don’t you approve of tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs?

Posted by: Librarian53 | January 5, 2013, 10:35 am 10:35 am

Cite the tax code. You can’t. There are no such tax breaks. It’s just another left-wing myth you blindly believed without verifying.

ROMNEYWILL LOSE, One thing Obama is surely not is a “uniter.” My God man! Look at the comments here. Nothing but name calling and the blame game. You call that “uniting” the country? Get a clue, dude! I don’t care if you are righty or lefty, both side are most certainly not “united.” Holy Crap, how in the world can you think that Obama is a “uniter?”

WOW: “..there are no parts of the bill that assist any company currently outsourcing to move back. If moving back costs more than the 20% credit they would only receive a year later then that makes no business sense.” – - – Obviously you know next to nothing about business management because you don’t know what you are talking about here. In each of my Business Administration, Human Resource Management, and Management courses I have done case studies on various businesses that moved overseas to lower their costs, found out American workers were more productive and produced higher quality products, and so they moved back to the US after after depretiating enough of their costs to move overseas. Typically they moved back after abouit five to seven years if I remember correctly. So, while their direct labor costs (i.e. pay and benefits( were indeed higher here in the US the higher productivity and quality production and other indirect labor costs of American workers (e.g. higher morale, greater responsibility, lower training costs, lower turnover rates, higher safety rates for example) meant that the higher labor costs did in fact make perfect business sense when considering the whole big picture.

NCPILOT22: “Ahh, I see that B-K is cherry picking the Constitution again and trying to spin it to his viewpoint. The 14th Ammendment says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned…” – - – ROFL Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of cherry picking. I quoted every relevant word of the 14th Amendment IN FULL CONTEXT. And since there is nothing else in the Constitution that strictly, explicitly, or clearly contradicts the 14th Amendment there was nothing else for me to quote that changes/influences the meaning of what the 14th Amendment states.

NCPILOT22: “And in Article I, the Constitution gives the authority to borrow money to CONGRESS. The 14th Amendment states essentially what is an aspiration or goal, which does not trump a specific allocation of constitutional powers.” – - – Nothing in Article I Section 8 Clause 2, which only says Congress has the authority “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States, states or implies that Congress has the authority to limit the debt of the United States or default on the debt of the United States, particularly if doing so require violating a any other part of the Constitution. Again, Article I neither explicitly or implicitly authorizes Congress to default on the debt of the United States. And the 14th Amendment prohibits defaluting on the debt (i.e. full taith and credit) of the United States. If the Congress won’t carry out the responsibility the 14th Amendment imposes then the President must, per Article II Section 3.

Correct, SABANIZ. The crazy, out-of-control spending must stop. NICKELBY and BK KNIGHTRIDER, Obama has NO authority to raise the debt ceiling all by himself. No president has ever had the sole authority to do that. It cannot be done without Congressional approval. That is why we always have had a system of checks and balances. The President and Congress work together. BK, your rantings are so ridiculous. WHY are you so worried, and WHY are you pushing so hard for Obama to keep spending and spending and spending when we need to reduce a deficit that is already so high that it’s mind-blowing? WHY would you want to give Obama carte blanche and the opportunity to take a credit card and have a never-ending spending spree? Maybe you’re worried that the handouts may stop? Obama’s wild spending rampage must be terminated once and for all.

Mytakeonthis (12:55 PM); I usually have respect for your opinions, but you are way off base on this one.

“If the Congress won’t carry out the responsibility the 14th Amendment imposes then the President must, per Article II Section 3.” And who decides the Congress is not doing the job? The President?

simple reason that no Congress except the last one has ever been irresponsbile enough to put a President in a postion to need to carry out the responsibility the 14th Amendment imposes.

Posted by: B-K KnightRider | January 5, 2013, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
—Dont you really mean no president except this president has been so irresoponsible to run up such an enoromous debt that it will take our childrens grand children to pay it off???

BK, Are you the Obama troll for today??? Sad that ABC allows this trolling to continue.

FRANCIS: “BK, Are you the Obama troll for today??? Sad that ABC allows this trolling to continue.” – - – No, the only thing that is truly sad here is the typical response by a conservative of resorting to an ad hominem attack when unable to provide a cogent argument or cogent counter argument.

BK; I believe you would rather live under the rule of a king. It sure sounds like it. It’s astounding to me how willing some people are to surrender their rights. It’s scary.

Howdymo1; Isn’t that just stimulus spending? I mean if I make those hammers and toilet seats and get all that money selling them back to the government, doesn’t that stimulate the economy?

NEWCOUNTRYMAN: “I get it now! Since Congress is not giving Obama everything he wants, they’re not doing their job.” – - – WRONG Learn to read better as I very carefully explained this in detail, then try to apply a modicum of critical thinking. If CONGRESS defaults on our public debt that CONGRESS created by law then CONGRESS would be violating the 14th Amendment to our Constitution by permitting fincancial markets and everyone else to question the validity of the full faith anc credit of our national debt and thus allow the financial markets to consequenclty punish not just the US government but ALL OF US with higher interest rates for the irresponsible behavior of Congress. I know a lot of people hate President Obama so much that they are fine with wrecking both the US and world economy. That kind of irrational blind hatred is just stupid.

Going to take more this time around other than simply refusing to pay the debt. To satisfy the credit rating agencies there will HAVE to be a plan in place which reflects a “long term downward trajectory” to reduce our debt…significantly. Folks who think that merely paying the bills this time will satisfy these agencies….wrong. We already have a negative rating. Unless we can show clear evidence of reducing our debt, we can very easily slip into perhaps a high “B” rating. Much work to be done. We are in one very, very big mess. In the meantime, the Isle of Man has a higher rating than we do. LOL.

B-K KNIGHTRIDER | JANUARY 5, 2013, 5:51 PM 5:51 PM———-No kidding. How about those businesses that charge $436 for a hammer or $3000 for a toilet seat or $6000 for a coffee maker. Now, that is greed at its best. I know some would call it stimulus spending but in reality, it’s just plain gluttony. The DOD needs to learn how to shop and those “special interest groups” need to have their mouths capped off.

FRANCIS | JANUARY 5, 2013, 6:09 PM 6:09 PM——-I wrote in a post earlier about how the DOD goes on a massive shopping spree just before the fiscal year ends. The reason for this is so they can ask for more money the following year. If they had any money left out of their budget, they couldn’t justify asking for an increase the next year. This is how we get $436 hammers, $3000 toilet seats and $6000 coffee makers. The hammers are the same that can be purchased from Walmart for $2.98 and it still makes a profit for the manufacturer and Walmart but the manufacturers seem to get dollar signs in their little eyeballs when the buyer is the federal government thus the outcome of being $436. The DOD doesn’t care, There was a study done under Ronald Reagan in 1983 about the outrageous prices that these companies were charging for their products. The end result of that study was “we can;t do anything about it because of special interest groups”. Now, can you name one person whose butt is worth planting on a $3000 toilet seat? Anyone out there who wants to justify this type of spending just so they can increase their numbers for the next fiscal year?

K, if both Fox News and ABC news have reported that there currently is a business deduction for costs associated with moving operations overseas, I am sure there is such a deduction.
You do know how to google and find responsible sources, right?

Or put up sound stages?

HOWDYMO1: “No kidding. How about those businesses that charge $436 for a hammer or $3000 for a toilet seat or $6000 for a coffee maker. Now, that is greed at its best.” – - – Clearly you don’t understand squat about contracting for military parts or about economics; specifically the principles of economy of scale and rarity. The fewer products a producer can sell the more expensive each product is. So, when it is not possible for the military to purchase a replacement part off the shelf and thus the government has to let a conract to purchase a few or even a single item that MUST BY LAW meet certain MILSPECs, and since such items must have appropreate documentation certifying that it meets the relevant MILSPECs, then such items will necessarily be much more expensive than similar but unusable items available to the public. Guess what happens when a corporation has to contract for the machining of a speific part to meet a specific need? That single part is MUCH much more expensive than if the manufacturer was able to produce and sell thousands or tens of thousands or millions of the same thing. Off the shelf parts are always less expensive than made to order parts. If you take microeconomics you can learn how to graph and interpret the graphs of the relevant marginal cost, averag total cost, and average varialbe cost curves and the price line necessary to understand how to maximize profits.

Again, when a company has to gear up or tool up to produce a few or even one of something the price will be relatively very high. That is just a basic reality of microeconomics. And since a company has a right to make a reasonable profit greed does not necessarily have to have anything to do with the unusually high price of a rare part or item. That is why the military has been trying for decades to use off the shelf parts that can meet MILSPEC requrements. But even those parts will be a little more expesive simply because of the certification necessary to ensure they meet MILSPEC requirements when the law requires the use of MILSPEC parts.

WOW: “Misrepresenting those who will not support that bill does not mean they don’t support insourcing. They just don’t support a bill that will NOT effectually impact insourcing one bit….” – - – ? ? ? ? ? I NEVER said or implied that you don’t support insourcin per se. Exactly how and when did I misrepresent anyone or anything? Instead of tossing out a hollow opinion how about trying to explain/support it with rational reasons and some evidence? Whenever I point out that someone else is misrepresenting someone or something I always quote their misrepresentation and then rationally explain how/why it is a misrepresentation. Everything I said in my only comment that is possibly relevant to outsourcing was100% true. I was NOT commenting about the bill to which you were referring, nor was I commenting about your support or lack of support for insourcing in general. Indeed, I was not saying anything at all about you per se.

I was only commenting upon OTHER matters, i.e. issues besides the bill you were discussing, that have in FACT made it economical for some companies to return their manufacturing to the US. Some companies have in FACT found that the higher productivity and quality American workers are capable of (among other factors) can make perfect economic/business sense for them to return their production to the United States. Facts are facts. I couldn’t care less about what you were sayng about that bill since I am not familiar enough with the bill in question to make any reasonable/informed comments about it.

I will be taking a break for some hot chocolate with pepperment. BTW, my direct business experience is totally irrelevant to the truths I was discussing. Facts are facts. If you really really want me to explain my busines experience I can even though that is irrelevant to the validity of my comments.

WOW: “Do you get it now?” – - – Oh yeah, that makes sense. I did not realize you were commenting about how other people are misrepresening certain things. Well duh, political ideologues do that dishonestly as a matter of routine.

And with securing a Second Term, the President unveils his true dictatorship agenda.

EPU: “At a 2008 campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans’ guns away.” – - – Oh good grief. How hard did you have to hit your partisan koolaide bong to get that delusion?

I’m waiting for the summit meeting with Vladimir Putin. I need more clarification on what flexibility means.

Hi The Great One Chairman Obama I thought you were not going to burden the middle class and poorer Americans I guess that was a crock right? I just received 2% raised for the new year and I am now making after taxes $20 less per pay Explain to me how I get a raise and make less money? (I know the reason Social Security Taxes went up for the so called working poor and middle class Chairman Obama Kool-Aid drinkers.) My wife and I make less then $100,000 a year, but we are still being targeted by Chairman Obama to pay for is his future disaster known as OBAMA CARE. An wait you Kool-aid drinkers he is also messing with charitable donation deductions and mortgage taxes, so I don’t want to hear I DIDN’T VOTE FOR THAT ….. OH YES YOU DID!!!, and I hope all you kool-aiders get exactly what you want. GOOD LUCK AND HAIL THE GREAT LEADER CHAIRMAN OBAMA.

Visionquest, citing percentage increase is fairly useless without reference to the amount of the principle. After all 150 percent of 10 is still less than 20 percent of 100.

Posted by: Forward! | January 6, 2013, 11:13 am 11:13 am

The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually . . .

Looks like Obama is taking a page from the Republican play book – no negotiating with the GOP. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it fits a bit tight. The Redumblicans have fought him tooth and nail from the minute he was first in office. It’s about time the President stop playing nice.

Posted by: Joe | January 6, 2013, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

Q: Will this new insurance regulation drive up my health insurance costs?

A: No.

White House, 2009

The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually . . .

Posted by: Dave | January 6, 2013, 11:29 am 11:29 am

You believe nonsense. Maybe you should take it up with those right wing shills at the New York Times.

Posted by: Joe | January 6, 2013, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

That quote came directly out of the same NY Times article. You just aren’t a very thorough reader – speaking of ‘ignorance’ a word you throw around like you’re exempt. Clearly you aren’t.

Costs are going up and people will get less care. Deal with it.

Posted by: K | January 6, 2013, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm

“overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually . . .”

As evidence in the NY Times article, the increases in health care cost have been reduced. They were double digit all through Bush’s terms. They are generally down to single digit now.

From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year.

The report found that insurance premiums for family health plans rose 4 per cent year-on-year in 2012. That was a sudden deceleration from the 9 per cent rise in the previous year

Dave, once the plan is fully implemented (which won’t be until a few years after 2014) we’ll know the real cost. It’s possible it may be a financial miracle but government’s track record of meeting cost projections and efficiency provides little reason for optimism. Most likely we’ll see either skyrocketing costs or decreased care. The idea of adding tens of millions to the rolls with no change in either is simply preposterous…and that doesn’t even address that there will still be tens of millions of uninsured who will continue to strain the system.

Commenting on what K has said, people will get less care. While Obama has insisted that things will be great with Obamacare, the reality is that doctors will get pay-offs for “end of life counseling” (death panels), and they also will receive an incentive for withholding medical care or a penalty of they give out too much care. Even Paul Krugman, a Democrat who had viciously attacked Sarah Palin for warning about government rationing of health care, admitted that Obamacare WILL cause healthcare rationing. Non-medically trained bureaucrats will be making the healthcare decisions.

Any poster art available besides the faux “Kennedy Brothers” propaganda shot?

From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year.

The report found that insurance premiums for family health plans rose 4 per cent year-on-year in 2012. That was a sudden deceleration from the 9 per cent rise in the previous year

Posted by: Dave | January 6, 2013, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm

Good to see someone posting legitimate studies rather than guesswork.

Regarding the comments by LIBERALS LIE again, Democrat Paul Krugman also indicated that the Obama administration is touting how much money they will save by not throwing money away on old people.

Posted by: Gill | January 6, 2013, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm

I believe the evidence of my own eyes, not the rantings of an Obama sycophant.

More than three in 10 in Americans say they’ve had to put off medical care for themselves or their family in the past year due to the cost, according to a new Gallup poll. That’s the highest percentage since Gallup started tracking that annually in 2001.

More than half of those with no health insurance say they’ve had to put off care (55 percent), as have 30 percent of those with private health insurance—while 21 percent of those who have Medicare or Medicaid say the same.

This is a top of the line administration.

Posted by: Frankie | January 6, 2013, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

Ask Canada, or any of the other countries very successfully running health care systems with coverage for all citizens and nobody driven into bankruptcy by having cancer, or a child born with major medical issues.

FRANKIE: “Commenting on what LIBERALS LIE says, it seems pretty obvious that in order to provide ALL Americans with health insurance, premimus will have to rise, and they WILL.” – - – Obviously you are totally clueless about a fundamental microeconomic reality about the health insurance industry. And that fundamental microeconomic reality is that the more people there are in a healthcare/health insurance program the LESS EXPENSIVE the premiums are. Indeed a fundamental microeconomic reality of just about all markets is that the more customers there are in a given market the lowere the costs are per product produced. That is why the Federal Emplyee Health Benefit Program insurance policies are among the least expensive in the country – because the customer base is so large. AND the FEHBP is also one of the best programs in the country. That is precisely why the keay part of candidate Hilary Clinton’s health reform plan was simply to make it legal for any American to purchase a FEHBP policy. Try taking a microeconomics course, then maybe you will learn and understand enough to get have a clue.

I get treated for VD at the free clinic.

The bankruptcy was primarily caused by sickness not allowing them to work and thus depletion of their savings, not lack of medical coverage.

Posted by: Randy | January 6, 2013, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm

That’s a lie.

Posted by: Reality Check | January 6, 2013, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm

It’s not a lie at all. People reported “medical reasons” when they lost their employment due to medical reasons, not simply losing a job due to loss of employment. This loss of work due to “medical reasons” depleted their savings, not lack of medical coverage.

That’s your opinion. That’s not what the study concluded.

Posted by: Reality Check | January 6, 2013, 7:40 pm 7:40 pm

Let’s be clear then – the study did NOT find 15% of bankrupt Canadian seniors went bankrupt due to cost of medical coverage. Did it?

If Obama is going to keep demanding a limitless credit card, there won’t be anything to negotiate about! The answer is NO, Mr. President! No more limitless borrowing and spending!

Obama is acting more like a power grabbing dictator everyday! Its time for the GOP House to draw that line in the sand!