Presidential Candidates Warn About Debt Deal

http://www.nytimes.com/ ^ | July 10, 2011 | Jeff Zeleny And Carl Hulse

[Biggirl]

DES MOINES — The decision by House Speaker John A. Boehner to scale back budget talks with President Obama unfolded as Republican presidential candidates were campaigning against any outcome that smacks of compromise, underscoring divisions in the party over whether to raise the federal debt limit.

[Big Horn]

NY Times and AP garbage.

[olezip]

The very idea that it is okay to mindlessly spend money and not worry about a budget is plain stupid, especially when applied to families, individuals, or corporations. It is not economically viable to pursue such a foolish policy.

But state and federal governments just do not worry about spending money; just borrow and print more money, get bailouts or stimulus funds until you trash the economy, and then blame the Republicans.

Raising the debt limit was a stupid idea from the start. But today's solution is to continue to raise the debt limit and keep on spending. This policy is dangerously insane, reckless, and irresponsible!

[JoeFromSidney]

A "compromise" between two parties means that each one gets something, and each one gives up something. However, the kind of "compromise" the politicians are talking about is one in which we the public get saddled with a bigger debt, and in return get to pay more taxes. They may call it a "compromise," but I call it robbery.

[Brilliant]

It’s really bad if the GOP candidates need to run against Boehner.

[Jim Scott]

No 'revenue enhancements' - tax hikes - are needed or necessary. Speaker Boehner and the congressional Republicans absolutely must remain firm on this. Cut the spending - and don't fall for the suckers game of promises from Democrats about future spending cuts that, as well all know, now, will never happen. Republicans should be reminding Americans - 24/7 - that a big chunk of the deficit is due to reckless spending by Obama. Any halfway intelligent person understands that we have a federal budget deficit because the government spends more than it takes in, which is plenty. Bring spending levels down and we wouldn't need to increase revenue - which will just be subsumed by the insatiable government maw. If the House passes a no-increase-in-spending bill and the senate refuses to pass it, let the senate Democrats take the heat. If both houses pass such a bill and Obama refuses to sign it, we default, supposedly, and Obama can take the heat. Either way, the taxpayer wins - for a change.

[Mariner]

"They don’t seem to get it that if the government cant borrow money, they just print it anyway at the FED. "

This is incorrect.

The Fed is still required to purchase US Treasuries with it's printed money to maintain the facade of value.

And, only the US House can originate a bill to allow the US Treasury to issue the bonds.

Without the issuance of bonds there can be no increase in debt, by law.

[ngat]

“Either way, the taxpayer wins - for a change.” Only if you accept the idea that cuts to a made-up, projected amount of spending, which still results in a deficit, is a spending cut at all.

[Jim Scott]

Only if you accept the idea that cuts to a made-up, projected amount of spending, which still results in a deficit, is a spending cut at all.

A valid point. So, we have to have spending cuts that do more than just nibble at the increases from recent years, which inevitably involves 'entitlement' program reductions - and that is always going to be problematic because, to begin with, the Democrats demagogue it to death. Then, the Republicans get scared - and nothing happens. That has to stop. Only a conservative president working with a conservative Republican majority in both houses of congress can expect to truly reduce federal spending. Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the debt ceiling fiasco. The only sane way to do so is to pass an authorization to raise the debt ceiling but absolutely no tax increases and some kind of spending cuts.

[Steamburg]

The Hopey Changies have their panties in a wad cause the Wascally Wepublicans aren’t rolling over as like the W0N commanded. Thus the innuendo story.

Boehner, the appeaser, knows that the grass has eyes and he and the GOP are lunch if they flinch on this one. They can’t begin to pile the BS high enough to hide.