Democrats threaten no payment on national debt if Republicans refuse to raise debt limit and taxes

Two Democratic officials familiar with the talks are saying negotiators will need to reach agreement on raising the national debt limit no later than July 22 so that legislation may be passed in time to stave off a default on U.S. debt.

The officials said the timeline was necessary in order to raise the legal debt ceiling by Aug. 2, the date the Treasury Department projects it will no longer be able to meet U.S. obligations.

This is more false rhetoric by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media who do not want spending cuts, despite national debt implications.

The debt limit is the amount the government can borrow to finance its exorbitant spending spree at taxpayer’s expense – those that pay taxes. The U.S. reached its debt limit of $14.3 Trillion dollars in May. The Democrats keep demagoguing the potential default on the debt to maintain the status quo – overspending.

The Obama administration and the mainstream media keep pushing the idea that if the Republicans don’t vote for an increase in the debt ceiling, that the United States could or will default on it’s debt. He has warned that not raising the debt ceiling could produce a spike in interest rates and “severe shock to the economy and the world financial markets.”

One solution put forth by some Republicans and tea partiers would be to simply pay the principal and interest on the debt before paying other federal obligations. Payment of interest on the debt should take priority over all other expensitures.

In fact, if Congress didn’t raise the debt ceiling, the federal government has more than enough money to service the debt and enough revenue left to cover about two-thirds of all government expenditures, including Social Security checks and Medicare.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner has criticized this proposal to prioritize interest payments on the nation’s debt and cut spending rather than raise the borrowing limit.

Geitner, in a letter to Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, said the idea is “a radical and deeply irresponsible departure from previous practices by presidents of both parties.”

If by both parties he means, “double the deficit” Bush and “I can beat that deficit” Obama, then it’s time to depart from previous practices by presidents of both parties!

There would be no reason for the government to default – unless Obama, Geitner’s Treasury Department and the Democrats intentionally refuse to pay the country’s debt obligations to further their political agenda of tax and spend.

This “default on the debt” threat is a tactic promulgated by the Democrats and the Obama administration and their threat will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, if the Obama administration refuses to make the payment on the national debt.



  1. Ted: Where did you get the idea that Democrats “do not want spending cuts” as part of any deal on the debt ceiling?

    As President Obama said just this morning, the bipartisan negotiations “have gotten both parties to identify more than $1 trillion in spending cuts.”

    As House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said just last week, “I believe that we have identified trillions in spending cuts, and to date, we have established a blueprint that could institute the fiscal reforms needed to start getting our fiscal house in order.”

    The problem is that Cantor and the other Republicans won’t agree to a deal that includes roughly 85 percent in spending cuts and 15 percent in revenue increases (virtually all of which would come from the wealthiest Americans.)

    Just this past March, in a report from Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee, a report entitled “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy.” Republicans said an ideal deficit reduction deal would amount to that same 85-15 split. But they’ve walked away from just such a proposal from the Democrats. They’re insisting that all the sacrifices to resolve the current fiscal crisis should fall on the poor and the middle class and none on the wealthiest of Americans.

    The reason for this is simple: As the Republicans have made amply clear over the past 29 months, they want Obama to fail.

    Even Ronald Reagan saw the wisdom in combining revenue increases with spending cuts. (See this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58198.html)

    But then Ronald Reagan would have a hard time winning a Republican primary these days, as Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee have both conceded. In today’s GOP, which has gone off the far-right deep end, Reagan would be considered a RINO (Republican In Name Only).


    Ted, it’s good to see that you are attempting to educate the ignorant one — Fat Patty Cunningham. But you shouldn’t waste your time and energy trying any more. He has proven that democrats generally have no brains when it comes to the economy and most other critical issues for this country.

    Their idea of more government spending and higher taxes has proven time and time again that it doesn’t work.

    Keep up the great work, Ted!!

  3. Navyflyer10, you seem like the one who has his head in the sand. I don’t know how much more can be said to educate you to the fact that since their taking their seats last year the Republicans have acted more like stupborn jackasses. They have yet to agree on nearly anything. How they manage to convince so many middle class Americans that it is patriotic for the Fat Cats to avoid taxes and stuff their pockets. While many are loosing their homes the rich fat cats are shopping for their third and fourth homes. If these trends continue the heavens will fall and we will see a revolution the likes of which the world has never seen. Beware of the “Normalcy Affect” it is easy to believe that what we have experienced in the past will dictate the future. That may not be the case.

  4. Terry


    The Republicans have wanted Obama to fail and by God, Obama has beat their expectations. He has been nothing but a failure! Are you still making that stupid comparison between him and Reagan and how the economy was doing during each of their terms? Go compare the economic recoveries of Reagan vs Obama

    Tax hikes in a weak economy is not how to grow an economy. Obama’s solution to solving the debt ceiling is to extend the depreciable life of private jets from 5 years to 7 years? That’s his pitiful excuse for leadership.

    The solution is go back to the spending levels of 2007, when the GOP Congress and President Bush had a deficit of only $161 billion

    As for winning primaries, JFK would be a republican in today’s democratic party.

    BTW – you still are a pathetic liar and if you want to see the proof, let me know.

  5. The “tax the rich” mantra from the left is, as usual, a tactic used to distract from the real problem, which is excessive spending. The simple fact is that federal tax revenues as a percentage of gdp have remained within a narrow band for decades, regardless of the top marginal rate:


    We also have the second highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world:


    Raising taxes will solve nothing. If the left were actually concerned about helping the “poor and middle class” (as opposed to just growing the government), they could propose further means testing for Medicare, for example. Farm programs primarily go to those who are rather well-off, as does the spending for our three wars.
    Of course, the wars and government spending for the wealthy are supported by the current administration, so we get calls for tax increases.

    The last chart I’ll post is this one:


    It’s the increase in the monetary base used to bail out the banksters:

    But of course the resulting inflation in things like fuel and food prices has done nothing to harm those with limited means. The left cares about the poor and middle class? Yeah, right.

    You can go back to your name-calling now, Pat and Barry.

  6. SNuss

    FYI, as to Obama’s bashing of corporate jets, part of his failed “stimulous” package PROMOTED jet purchases by businesses!

    It is almost as if Obama doesn’t have a clue as to what he has done, or what he is doing. 😉

  7. SNuss

    BTW, even if you taxed the all the millionaires and billionaires at 100%, it wouldn’t make a significant dent in the debt, as the following clearly illustrates. This is a bit long, but worth reading.

    There Aren’t Enough Millionaires

    This may sound like a liberal parody of conservative economic thinking, but let me put it out there: America’s problem is that the rich don’t have enough money.

    There, I said it. Let’s rumble.

    When it comes to the Scrooge McDuck set, the problem isn’t that they’re not rich enough, it’s that there aren’t enough rich — not enough to do what liberals want to do, anyway, which is to balance the budget by increasing taxes on them. Let’s deploy some always-suspect English-major math:

    There are lots of liberal definitions of “rich.” When Pres. Barack Obama talks about the rich, he’s talking about people living in households with income of more than $250,000 or more, the rarefied caviar-shoveling stratum occupied by the likes of second-tier public-broadcasting executives, Boston cops, nurses, and the city manager of Lubbock, Texas (assuming somebody in her household earns the last $25,000 to carry her over the line). Club 250K isn’t all that exclusive, and most of its members aren’t the yachts-and-expensive-mistresses types.

    Nonetheless, there aren’t that many of them. In fact, in 2006, the Census Bureau found only 2.2 million households earning more than $250,000. And most of those are closer to the Lubbock city manager than to Carlos Slim, income-wise. To jump from the 50th to the 51st percentile isn’t that tough; jumping from the 96th to the 97th takes a lot of schmundo. It’s lonely at the top.

    But say we wanted to balance the budget by jacking up taxes on Club 250K. That’s a problem: The 2012 deficit is forecast to hit $1.1 trillion under Obama’s budget. (Thanks, Mr. President!) Spread that deficit over all the households in Club 250K and you have to jack up their taxes by an average of $500,000. Which you simply can’t do, since a lot of them don’t have $500,000 in income to seize: Most of them are making $250,000 to $450,000 and paying about half in taxes already. You can squeeze that goose all day, but that’s not going to make it push out a golden egg.

    But like certain other exclusive clubs, Club 250K has an inner sanctum, a special club within the club, the champagne room of socioeconomic status. And that is Club 1: the million-dollar-a-year club. Not the millionaires’ club — lots of the people earning $1 million in any given year do not have $1 million in assets — but, still, a million a year, even in rapidly depreciating U.S. dollars, is not too shabby. But the trouble for liberals is, Club 1 is really, really exclusive: Only 0.2 percent of U.S. households have incomes that high, meaning that there’s only about 200,000 of them. And like Club 250K, Club 1 is bottom-heavy: There are a lot more $1 million men than there are $6 million men. And there are a whole heck of a lot more $6 million men than there are $60 million men.

    You want to tax Club 1 to get rid of the deficit, you have to hit each of those 200,000 households with an average tax hike — not an average tax bill, but tax increase — of $6 million. And a lot of those Club 1 households don’t have $6 million in income to start with, much less $6 million left after the taxes they’re already paying.

    Every time you raise the threshold for eating the rich, you get a much, much smaller serving of meat on the plate — but the deficit stays the same. The long division gets pretty ugly. You end up chasing a revenue will-o’-the-wisp.

    So, what about Lloyd Blankfein and Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods? What about these people? You can tax the striped pants off of them, but you won’t get enough money to balance the budget. If you’re doing it, you’re probably mostly doing it because it feels good. (And, yes, that does make you a bad person.)

    Correction: You can try to tax the striped pants off of them. Lloyd Blankfein and Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen have a lot of discretion about when, where, and how they get paid. Lloyd Blankfein does not look at a pay stub every two weeks and shake his head sadly, and make sad little sighing sounds; guys like that do something about it. They move to low-tax jurisdictions. They defer. They incorporate. They set up enormous trusts to keep their ne’er-do-well nephews in boat shoes and gin and political office while avoiding taxes. They lawyer up. They will play the game, and they are better at it than you are.

    So, how about taxing people who make less than $250,000? That’s probably whom you want to tax, since they are the ones who have the money (Counterintuitive, I know.) The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” cost the Treasury about $800 billion in forgone revenue; the Bush tax cuts for the middle class cost trillions – 2.2 of them, to be precise.

    Repealing all of those Bush tax cuts, for rich and middle class alike, gets you about $3 trillion — over ten years. The deficit is running from a third to almost half that every year. Will not balance. Does not compute.

    Just as supply-siders are naïve to think that tax cuts are going to magically empower us to grow our way out of this mess, progressives are naïve to think that there is some magically delicious pot of Lucky Charms at the end of the IRS rainbow that is going to get us out of this in some kind of obvious or straightforward fashion. No, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, but supply-side effects are real things, and jacking up tax rates to the level necessary to sustain current levels of government spending is going to have real economic consequences, some of which could in aggregate mean that you don’t collect the taxes you thought you were going to collect. This is doubly true when you already have the second-highest business-tax rate in the developed world and other significant economic challenges, like a backward K–12 education system making the work force less competitive and public infrastructure that is being neglected in favor of gimmicky political shenanigans.

    Capital is sensitive — it just wants to be loved! — and it will go where the love is, where it can be fruitful and multiply. Setting trillions of dollars’ worth of it ablaze on the altar of Washington’s self-importance every year is not going to get it done, and there simply aren’t enough rich people for us to pillage or enough loot to make it all work. We have finally, as the lady predicted, run out of other people’s money.


  8. Ted Biondo

    Pat, the point of the post was that the Democrats are not going to pay the country’s debt obligations, and default on the debt. The debt limit and the cuts are both incidental to default on the debt.

    $1T in Democratic cuts or the $2T in Paul Ryan Republican cuts over 10 years is a drop in the bucket comprared to Obama’s deficit spending per year – but that was incidental to the post!

    As SNuss has pointed out – There aren’t enough rich people to pay for the deficit spending by the Obama administration or what the Republicans are proposing, anyway. See my other post:


    But let’s stop going off point. The point of the post is that the Obama administration can still pay the debt and the interest payment when they come due and Obama and the liberal press are lying about the country going into default, unless the Obama administration allows it to happen, by not paying the bill when it comes due!

    Discuss the default folks not the cuts!

  9. Ted Biondo

    Barry – your comment also has nothing to do with the default. What about the default issue which was what the post was about? Why do you guys always go off on a tangent?

    Are the Democrats going to refuse to use the money they would have even if the debt ceiling is not raised and pay the bill when it comes due, or are they going to let the country default and try to blame it on the Republican’s refusal to go along with them in raising the debt limit and the taxes?

    I can’t make it any clearer than that, can I?

  10. Why when talking about raising the taxes on the rich does the right complain it isn’t enough. Is it not a start? Maybe we should of been taxing them more before we got in this mess?

    I read plenty of stories about funding being cut for programs that helped the poor. When will I read a story about Joe rich guy taking a hit? Is the plan to starve the poor and helpless till the US is debt free?

    “The original bill written by Republicans had made large cuts to domestic feeding programs and foreign food aid but no major cuts to farm subsidy programs. Democrats and some conservatives criticized that legislation because it did not dip into subsidies.”

    The boys on the right have no problem handing farmers billions, but ask them to help one of them babies they fought so hard to keep from being aborted, and they get all tight fisted. The real shame is we subsidize the crops that are making us fat. Which only makes our problems worse. It is also pretty crazy that a farmer making up to 750,000 a year can apply for subsidies. But the boys on the right love to blame the poor.

    The good news is we decided that we won’t be subsidizing Brazils cotton industry in addition to ours. That saved us 147 million right there.

  11. 85% cuts and 15% tax increases looks reasonable to me. Take the politics out of this one and it would look very reasonable to anyone else in the modern world.

    My personal feelings are, the average American, isn’t feeling very political lately. They aren’t going to look at the 85/15 deal and say it was a bad idea for either side.

    They are looking for a consensus of opinion. I’d bet they are expecting it. They don’t want to hear about the Stimules working or not working or the Whitle House in 2012 etc etc etc..

    And they will support a President who comes down on the Congress like a ton of bricks if they fail in their job to find that consenus. And that would be no matter which political party that President belonged to in this exact problem facing this nation.

    Now you may continue to pretend only Conservatives have the answer and Republican/Tea Party can save our bacon in this matter, but than you’ve always appeared much smarter than that to even silly me. It takes two to dance in the waltz contest and there’s good reson why we don’t dance alone. Good government demands input so all can be heard and we continue dancing well into the next 100 years as a nation. – Carol Foster

  12. Steve Noll

    The debt cieling has been raised dozens of times. It has never failed to pass a vote. This would be the first time in history that the debt cieling increase failed to pass. And yes, failure to pass a measure to guarantee bond holders get timely payment would decrease US investment ratings and cause bond yields to increase which would cause interests rates to increase. When interest rates go up, we all take home less. Its the same as a tax increase. If congress and Obama can clean up the budget and pass a debt increase at the same time, we will all benefit.

  13. Chuck Sweeny

    Neither party will control spending; neither party has done so in the past. We have not created a “net” new job since 1999. Four trillion dollars worth of unpaid for wars — Ron Paul said that, I’m just repeating it — has a lot to do with why we’re under water. As does unrealistic spending on a whole host of things. But Republicans are shamelessly grandstanding when they talk about making cuts to just 12 percent of the budget — non-defense, discretionary spending. And Democrats just want to spend more money. Period.
    We’re in a world of hurt.

  14. SNuss

    Steve sez: “When interest rates go up, we all take home less. Its the same as a tax increase.”

    The same can be said about the “quantitative easing” programs, which means printing LOTS of money to try and cover some of the debt. That makes both our earnings AND any savings worth less, by devaluing the dollar. That is also part of why the stock market is showing gains,

  15. Ted Biondo

    Why does no one want to address the topic of the post which was that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the government can still pay the debt and nothing will default!! Obama’s administration alone will choose to pay or not pay the debt as the top priority.

    Until I hear different, I will assume I’m right and we can discuss the cuts and deficit spending.

  16. SNuss

    Just a reminder from Feb. 2009 as to how we reached this point so quickly, thanks to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi troika:

    CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul

    President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

    CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

    CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.

    The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill — forcing the crowd-out.

    CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

    NOTE: The CBO’s short-term assessment was overly optomistic, as the following paragraphs show:

    CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010.

    The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent.

    CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

    Read the rest at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

  17. Ted Biondo

    Joe, it’s simple math – The rich simply don’t have enough money to pay the debt or most of Obama’s deficit if you took all the money the rich have including all their property and everybody all the way down to $150,000. Why should they be required to give their money to you?

    Go to the link in my response #8.

    It’s supposed to be a free society and the rich already pay enough. Top 5% pay 58% of the taxes – I don’t care if they have 50% of the money. What are you paying? The bottom 40 – 50% pay 3.4% of all the federal taxes the other half of us pay the rest.

    Have you ever taken a risk with all your money? I doubt it. How many jobs have you provided the country,Joe?

    Let’s take your farm subsidy argument. I’m willing to have all subsidies taken away. I don’t like any subsidies that use other people’s money! I’m willing to pay the higer prices for commodities and food – are you? Are the Poor?

    You liberals forget, that for every action there are unintended consequences – like higher prices for the product if subsidies are removed.

    Or should the government control the prices that everyone charges for their product? Should the government also determine the profit on the product, too? Do you think the rich will risk their money if they can’t make more than just sticking their assets in a bank? You want the government to just take their money! Where’s the freedom – you want anarchy by the mobs!

    Or maybe the government should take even more of the investors money too. People saving for retirement or in retirement, so the lazy bums who didn’t graduate from high school can have their share of our earnings too?

    There are a lot of stockholders taking risks with their money. Should capital gains be 50%, 75% so you and others can have a part of others’ earnings without taking any of the risk?

    You don’t even understand economics 101. Your world would be just like Greece and the European Socialists and you see what’s happening to them. No thanks!

  18. Ted Biondo

    Carol – consensus means comprimise. But all can comprimise on the wrong thing and nothing is accomplished. 85- 15% doesn’t work if you are spending $4T per year and the 85-15% cuts and taxes don’t equal the debt you are creating.

    The Democrats are debating cuts of $1T with tax increases and the Republicans are talking about $2T over a 10 year period with no tax increases.

    How does either help when the debt will still pile up to $20T over the next decade and your kids and mine are going to have to pay it off. Consensus on the wrong goal is not good enough!

    Democrats AND Republicans need to stop spending money they don’t have above what they take from us, at the expense of future generations to satisfy our generation’s entitlement mentality!

    When will the American riots start because over half the people will be living on the money provided by the government using the forced generosity of taxpayer dollars.

    Don’t you think that it is sad that Washington doesn’t even trust itself to do the responsible thing for the American people, without having to control themselves with a debt limit – how unbelievably sad!


    Barry, thank you for prominently displaying your ignorance on this issue; just as you probably do on most issues. You must stop using Fat Pat as your mentor.

    The Obama’s have no concern about the debt as exhibited by their lavish lifestyle while Amercians are pinching pennies. Here is a link that will hepl educate you:

    In the mean time, all of you who want to raise taxes, you can start doing it now by “donating” your money to the IRS. There is no law against paying the IRS extra. Just make sure that you don’t claim it on future taxes as a deduction as then you are really not paying extra. So just step right up and put your money where your mouths are!

    Read the article in t oday’s paper about what Quinn and his fellow dems are stealing from charity. Then tell me that dems and liberals really have a sense of economic responsibility.

  20. Steve Noll

    Ted: Simply paying the interest payments on debt in lieu of paying its operating bills would not avoid an increase in interest rates. Making your car payment but not having any money for gas eventually leads to no work, no more money for the car payment. Besides, an act of desperation to make debt payments would have the same outcome in the market…US Bond ratings would go down and interest rates would go up.

  21. SNuss

    The choices boil down to these: The Democrat plan will delay our economic collapse slightly, but basically embraces their tax & spend policies.

    The Republican plan is a good start, but will require additional cuts to correct the overspending problems. It MAY even be necessary to TEMPORARILY increase income taxees on everyone living above the poverty level, once the economy stabilizes, with those funds being used only to pay down the debt.

  22. truth hurts

    The basic problem of federal, state, county, and city is we are spending more than you are spending. Hence DEFICIT.

    That BASIC FACT is why tax increases on rich WILL NOT WORK. PERIOD.

    The reason the debt limit was raised with no resistance before is the same reason most people before were running up credit card debt. If you have a good job you can make the minimum payment.

    But now people have discovered you cannot do that anymore when you loose your job and/or less income is comming in. Now making even the minimum payment is hard to impossible. So adding to it is IRRESPONCIBLE AND STUPID.

    Well that is what is facing the US goverment now. Due to the people losing jobs and the economic downturn, the money IS NOT COMMING IN.. The usual adding to the debt ceiling (AKA adding to the credit card) is no longer viable.

    The second REAL PROBLEM is neither republicans or democrats are willing to cut spending in areas that are easy and can be done immediately. Why you ask?


    Here is some OBVIOUS cuts that would save TRILLIONS.

    1. Cut welfare to those who need it and cut it off to those who abuse the system. If a woman continues to have 3, 4, 5+ kids on welfare, sorry you obviously are doing it for MY MONEY. As a NBC article stated in Texas growers for $12 hr cannot find LEGAL workers. Well teenagers, healthy welfare people, and homeless…a job.

    2. Pull medical licence from ANY DOCTOR who defrauds medicare/medicade. Every time you read an article about this scum it states they have been stealing MILLIONS for years. Well if some num-nut beurocrat can fine me for “gasp” not bringing my garbage cans back in a day you darn well can catch this fraud going on for YEARS. Then the doctors get some fines, keep all their property and their licences.

    3. NO AID/FUNDING/HOUSING/ECT TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. /As an obvious example the Kids Care program in IL found that 50% of the funding went to illegal aliens. If you stopped giving LAW BREAKERS from getting the state aid, you double your money for legal people.

    4. All public officials only get benifits the lower state workers get. No goverment/state cars for personal use, fancy office furniture, large staff (remember typing pools), multiple consultance/studies (what are we paying you for) and golden health insurance.

    5. An overhall of the tax system to a flat income and corporate tax. Example a 20% tax with first (example) 12,000 tax free (individual) and nothing (they build it in expences anyway) corporate. In other words no more getting back more money than you pay in.

    You can see these few ideas (and there are many more, but the blog would get bogged down) WOULD NOT COULD save hundreds of millions of dollars.


    But as you can see the libs, special interest groups, illegal aliens, and misinformed will scream bloddy murder.

    The reality is the republicans and democrats protecting their own special interest groups can spin, spindle, protest, poll, lie, untill the cows come home.

    Finger pointing as rome burns as it were.

    But the truth is the money is GONE, the credit card/debt MAXED OUT and THERE IS NO MORE TAX TO GET.

    We are failing and it is a matter of year or less till it WILL BLOW UP IN OUR FACES.

    Either we cut spending now and tell the special interest/projects to go “pack sand” or we will make the 1920 depression seem like a mild incident.

  23. “Why should they be required to give their money to you?”

    I asked them to do what? Wasn’t my post about the governement wasting our tax money by giving it to farmers? Wouldn’t stopping these payments save the rich money? I would think saving the rich money would be the opposite of them giving it to me. But what do I know about economics. lol. Please teach me wise one.

    “Let’s take your farm subsidy argument. I’m willing to have all subsidies taken away. I don’t like any subsidies that use other people’s money! I’m willing to pay the higer prices for commodities and food – are you? Are the Poor?

    You liberals forget, that for every action there are unintended consequences – like higher prices for the product if subsidies are removed.”

    I already pay the higher prices for food. The foods I eat don’t receive subsides. I try to eat healthy. I’m also blessed with a backyard that doubles as a garden. I enjoy fresh organic food. Or as my lil one calls it, fresh fresh cooking.

    “Have you ever taken a risk with all your money? I doubt it. How many jobs have you provided the country,Joe?”

    I have. I don’t know the number of jobs provided because I used a lot of outside vendors. I’m a chief not an indian.

    “It’s supposed to be a free society and the rich already pay enough. Top 5% pay 58% of the taxes – I don’t care if they have 50% of the money. What are you paying? ”

    I have never kept track of my total tax liability. But between gas and hotel taxes alone I’m pretty sure I’m paying my fair share. Don’t even get me started. It should be noted that the top 5% pay 58% of income taxes, but that is only one form of tax. We have plenty of other taxes that poor people do pay. (alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, property, electric, cable, water, phone, state sales tax) It would be silly to suggest the pooy pay no taxes.

  24. shawnnews

    Pretty funny. Navyflyer10 posts a link to World Net Daily and says “Here’s a link that will hepl educate you.” The birthers!

  25. Ted:

    The President made it very clear in his press conference the other day. We will service the debt and he will decide who gets paid and who doesn’t get paid with what is left.

    That will be what happens if the Congress continues to play politics with the debt ceiling.

    Again 85/15 is a good deal even if they increase the cuts and tax from present figures. And nobody, except Conservatives, have said only the rich are expected to pay higher taxes.

    My simple rule of politics is to understand what the other side can do, or will do, if pushed too far. The Republicans don’t hold the upper hand unless they are capable of producing something of value. You’ve made it very clear their proposed cuts are far too few to be of any value.

    Do you recall Ronald Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers? Once a President takes control, that’s it! You may whine, cry, and stomp your feet at the choices he’ll make on who gets paid but your input won’t matter. And as we saw in the game of that tax traded for the unemployment benefits to continue, I doubt Conservatives will like who suffers the non payments.

    It’s amazing how quickly political frends turn into foes when the money runs dry and what they will do to get that spicket turned back on at even a trickle. As that old movie remarked, “hang on it’s going to be a bumpy ride.” – Carol Foster

  26. SNuss

    Carol sez: “And nobody, except Conservatives, have said only the rich are expected to pay higher taxes.”

    Oh, really?

    From http://www.nydailynews.com: “Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them,” said Obama in his weekly radio address. “Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else.”

    From RealClearPolitics: Raise Taxes on Rich, Obama Challenges GOP

    From the Washington Post: Obama says it’s only ‘fair’ to raise taxes on the rich.

    Like it, or not, Carol, the ONLY group who advocates the kind of spending cuts that will be needed is the TEA Party. Not Democrats, nor RINOs.

  27. Ted Biondo

    Carol – we can also vote him out of office before he does more damage to the economy and future generations. Also watch the blog tomorrow and I’ll show you to what extent this administration and the Democrats will go to keep spending more than they have in revenue. Unfortunately, almost half the people are existing off the government, and the other half are supplying the money, so who knows what the election will hold for those of us who are paying?

    Obama could service the debt without going into default, by cutting spending and paying the debt and interest before paying anything else, but he has chosen not to do that. He has just kept on spending from January until July, so that the government will run out of money before paying the debt, and he, Obama, will be responsible for any default, no one else.

    Also Carol, the 85- 15 will not work, either. Look at the simple numbers of debt versus taxing the rich in the following link. The link may not work if you don’t have a description but the main point is this – “Normal interest rates would raise debt-service costs by $4.9 trillion over 10 years, dwarfing the savings from any currently contemplated budget deal.”


    “First, a normalization of interest rates would upend any budgetary deal if and when one should occur. At present, the average cost of Treasury borrowing is 2.5%. The average over the last two decades was 5.7%. Should we ramp up to the higher number, annual interest expenses would be roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020.

    The 10-year rise in interest expense would be $4.9 trillion higher under “normalized” rates than under the current cost of borrowing. Compare that to the $2 trillion estimate of what the current talks about long-term deficit reduction may produce, and it becomes obvious that the gains from the current deficit-reduction efforts could be wiped out by normalization in the bond market.”

    and also,

    “There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest costs in any one year at the end of the decade between current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over the last 20 years. ”

    Please, we must all realize that there are no simple solutions to this problem and the longer we kick the can down the road, the worse it’s going to be. This debt is monumental despite whether we us the Democratic cuts or the Republican cuts and tax increases, it will not be enough to pay off this debt in our lifetimes even if we were starting today!

  28. SNuss
    What is it you don’t understand about those in the upper income brackets having higher costing tax deductions and so those are the most talked about items? Easiest one for people to understand need to be ended. Let’s also recall the talk about the interst you pay on your mortgage being a target of no longer being tax deductable and that’s the home owners of America who stretch across most tax brackets.

    This President has also taken the unpopular stand that corporations need to really pay their taxes rather than whine about the bracket they are in but don’t send a check to the Treasury, or so little, they pay as if they are poverty level in business.

    You and Ted love to repeat this 50/50 thing about people getting government checks. Gentlemen, this offends all of us receiving our Social Security. Talk to me again with those numbers when you remove Social Security recipents, disabled Veterans, and aid to Dependent Children. None in those groups are dead beats. I do have my doubts on corporate Farmers being paid by the government not to produce or to limit production of product. – Carol Foster

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *