Obama threatens Social Security if debt limit not raised; Senate’s McConnell capitulates his power

President Barack Obama is threatening Social Security checks and veteran benefits if the debt limit isn’t raised by August 2. Obama would be responsible for setting priorities and he feels the voter power of such groups would pressure Congress to raise the debt ceiling.


Obama said in an interview with U.S. television network CBS that checks to recipients of the Social Security retirement program may not go out in early August if he and congressional leaders do not agree on a debt deal.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” Obama said, according to excerpts of the interview released before its broadcast.

“Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Obama said. He said veterans checks and disability benefits could also be affected without a deal.

The future of the American economy hangs in the balance between Obama who continues to think that we can spend our way out of the deficit and some Republicans who think that the government should live within its means.

House Speaker John Boehner called the debt limit increase Obama’s problem. And Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky is ready to capitulate the entire debt ceiling debacle to Obama with a proposal that would allow Congress to raise the debt ceiling with just the support of Democrats, allowing Republicans to wash their hands of the whole thing and hope Obama is defeated in 2012!

Even though McConnell’s resolution requires an equal amount of spending cuts for each dollar the debt ceiling is raised, what if Obama cuts defense?


Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offered a new plan to allow the president to demand up to $2.4 trillion in new borrowing authority by the summer of next year in three separate submissions. Those increases in the so-called debt limit would automatically take effect unless both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate enact legislation specifically disapproving it.

Obama would be able to veto such legislation.

Passsage of this resolution would be a total capitulation of the Senate’s sworn fiduciary duty to the American taxpayers. The legislation would end with the end of Obama’s term in office. The country would end the day after.



  1. What! The Republicans don’t get their way so they stomp out and say I’ll do the job after the next election?
    What happened to they told us they would do the job if you voted them in last November?
    Too tough I guess and so off they go in hopes if they have the White House that will be the difference and they can keep those promises. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave to know Conservatives have become no more than those who quote him but lack the guts to carry out his ideas.
    If your given 85% of the deal and can’t manage, it’s because you are gutless and have no confidence in your ability to do the job.
    This economy isn’t going to improve soon you Conservatives will be facing the exact same problems going into the next election. Only this time voters might be asking them what did they do about it when it appeared they were holding the upper hand?

  2. Freeloaders and deadbeats are up 37% in the last 2 years and they want more money from us “mean, rich, white, males” who don’t pay our “fair share”. This is a great link I found on how the “unfair” tax rates have shifted in the past 10 years and who fills the treasury so it can be redistributed to the feeding flock. Might be some surprising FACTS, a little different than what the talking heads on TV tell the public. You are right about one thing, Carol: Obama CAN’T lose with all the groups that rely on him. He doesn’t even need independants, with all the Dependants.


  3. Don’t worry, Carol, just “eat your peas”, and keep drinking the Kool-ade. This is a typical Democrat tactic, to scare the elderly. They tell you that cuts will be made in a way to maximize pain to the American people, rather than reducing the bloated bureaucracy that they have created.

  4. “…allowing Republicans to wash their hands of the whole thing until Obama is defeated in 2012!”

    So silly. Before you can predict his lose shouldn’t you atleast have a candidate to run against him? Sadly the cons are brining nothing to the table for the next election which really makes statements like the one above look silly.

  5. Just an additional thought on that 37% rise.

    When did it become so easy to blame an aging population for growing old and telling them they have become a burden?

    When did it become so easy to say the same thing to the disabled vetrans and others with disabilities that don’t allow them to hold a job?

    And when was it popular to say those unemployed, and have been looking for jobs for so long, don’t deserve some help and call what they get a “handout.?”

    That’s the majority who get those government checks every month Juice is so put out about and feel are too dumb to know if they are Conservatives, Libertarians, Green Party, Democrats etc.. You see, they do understand a majority of them have been getting checks when even the Republicans were in the White House.

    How foolish to believe when you become retired or disabled, or unemployed, your mind ceases to function. How insulting.

    If the Republicans are losing voters perhaps they need to take their collective foot out of their mouths and treat those getting checks like the adults they are and not the mindless children some here pretend can’t figure it all out. – Carol Foster

  6. “How foolish to believe when you become retired or disabled, or unemployed, your mind ceases to function. ”

    No, being brainwashed into a Liberal Democrat is what does that, at any age.

    Cuts are what is needed, not more spending. It is the Democrats who want to KEEP spending, that are the problem. They added over $4 trillion to the debt in less than three years, but can’t find any “fat” to trim. What a joke.

  7. I can see SNuss you still refuse to see you have an aging population and with it brings costs not experienced back in the good old days of former Conservative glory.

    The groups I named in my previous comment aren’t the “fat” you so cheerfully are looking to trim. Yet they do make-up the biggest portion of all those checks you like to talk about going out each month that you feel are buying the votes of the recipients.

    The reason why we have no solution from the Conservatives on this issue of cuts is because you refuse to accept you can’t cut your way out of an aging population. This portion of the population will require more funding than we’ve seen in this nations past history.

    Doing away with some gov agencys isn’t going to turn the trick for you in the midst of a great depression. Deal with the problem of aging costs and most everything else will fall into place. The percentages of how we spend in the future will be dramatically altered for around the next 25 years. – Carol Foster

  8. Ted Biondo

    Carol Foster #1 – I have to agree with your assessment of the cowardice of certain powerful Republicans in dealing with the debt limits issue and Obama’s threats!

    Since they can’t win the game of marbles with the mean old press and the TV bias and they obviously feel that those of us who elected them in the last election, don’t really follow what is going on, so they will take their marbles and go home – no guts, as you say.

    The only way to get elected is to do what you said you would do and let the chips fall where they may. However, most of the people in Washington seem more concerned with their reelection than the people they are supposed to serve.

  9. Ted Biondo

    Carol Foster #5 and #7 – the old aged population that are receiving those checks, have paid into Social Security for decades. The money wasn’t invested – It was stolen by the government to pay for their overspending. IOUs were placed in non-negotiable bonds backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. government – well, we now know what that is worth! The over $1T stolen will be repaid a second time by our children and a third time by their children the way the government is spending.

    Now the ones who stole the money say the benefits we paid for are to be means tested, because if you have managed to save some extra money despite all the taxes the elderly have paid over forty years, then you don’t really need your Social Security, so we will give it to someone else – that will work!

    How about cutting the “fat” paid in foreign aid to bribe countries that hate us; the cost of wars, including Obama’s wars; or welfare given to able bodied people who keep managing to have kids out of wedlock, or the billions paid to people who don’t even legally belong in our country, but politicians want their vote, and businesses want their cheap labor, so the taxpayers pay and pay!

  10. Carol, as usual, you are mis-informed. I am fast approaching retirement age, and am perfectly aware of the costs involved.

    I am also aware of the FACTS! We can’t SPEND our way out of this problem. We must have significant fiscal reform, and yes, that will mean cuts to the so-called “entitlements”.

    You seem to think that there is an unlimited supply of “government” money out there, and all we have to do is crank up the presses. You, and all the Leftist Democrats out there, would be wrong. “Qualitative easing” (printing billions of dollars) has already been tried twice by the Obama administration. In case you haven’t noticed, commodity prices are getting higher and higher.

    You can’t continue to spend money that you don’t have in your own budget, without going bankrupt, and the Federal Government is no different, except they can print devalued bills to cover things up, for a while. The point of no return is fast approaching (even faster, thanks to the Democrats’ spending spree).

  11. Wilson

    Basically, if our dear president withheld the payments it would be total a political decision. (something he does excel at.)

    “Goss confirmed the decision to send out Social Security checks (or not) would, indeed, be a Treasury Department (a.k.a. the administration’s) decision.”


  12. BTW, Obama’s statement means that the vaunted Social Security “lock-box’ is nothing but a Liberal Lie.

    Some more unbiased data on government finances:

    Here are the facts, as reported by MarketWatch and the Bipartisan Policy Center. You do the math:

    * The federal government receives approximately $200 billion in revenues each month.

    * Interest on the national debt in August will be approximately $29 billion.

    * Social Security will cost about $49. 2 billion.

    * Medicare and Medicaid will cost about $50 billion.

    * Active duty military pay will cost about $2.9 billion.

    * Veterans affairs programs will cost about $2.9 billion.

    If you’ve been punching buttons on your calculator, you know that still leaves $39 billion each month. This is where Obama and the Democrats most fear to go. If Congress doesn’t agree to raise taxes and the national debt limit, they will then have to make the tough choices about which of the remaining programs gets paid or cut and by how much:

    * Defense vendors

    * IRS refunds

    * Food stamps and welfare

    * Unemployment benefits

    * Department of Education

    * Department of Housing and Urban Development

    * Department of Justice, etc. etc.

    In sum, federal spending would have to be cut about 44 percent.

    So the next time you hear Obama, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, or Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, or any of the multiple Democratic echo chambers in the liberal mainstream media, remember – what they are saying is pure demogoguery.

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/washington-gets-200-billion-month-social-security-costs-50-billio#ixzz1S5yWSOwS

  13. Ezra Klein today posted a good account of the administration’s goals:


    Note that “expanding government again” is chief among them. All of the talking points we hear about the rich paying their share, etc. are worth about as much as the anti-war talk of 2006 and 2008. The goal is, as always, a more powerful government and diminished individual liberties.
    If the left actually cared about an equitable sharing of sacrifice they would be cutting the many programs that benefit wealthy individuals and large corporations. Like our overseas empire, farm programs, medicare subsidies to millionaires who can afford to buy health insurance, regulations that protect drug companies from competition (resulting in the world’s highest pharmacy prices), etc.
    The fact that none of this is even discussed is telling.
    In the ultimate irony, the administration is even ignoring the deficit commission Barack Obama appointed. Their report can be found here:


    If you read the report, and then play back the interview that Ted posted a couple of days ago with Rand Paul. you’ll notice that what they are both advocating is very similar.

  14. in the middle

    This ‘THREATENING CRAP’ reminds me of local school districts. A few decades ago, they threatened with ‘NO SCHOOL BUSES’ if the budget does not pass. So, of course, the budget passed. A state law was passed so they could not take away buses. Now, They threaten people with what ever THAT district treasures the most-their winning football team, their excellant music dept. etc. EXTORTION! Obama threatens with Social Security and before, HALF PAY TO SOLDIERS! (I don’t think it is even LEGAL to only half pay someone. And imagine if ALL our soldiers reacted to that-‘You are not paying, so, we are not fighting, Go ahead and fire us.’). Why is it that Welfare checks, MedCAID, Food STAMPS are NEVER THREATENED? Oh, they are favorites of the Liberal Party. SSI and the Military, Republican favorites. If Obama said he would have to hold Welfare payments, He knows it is not as much as a threat. Extortion. That is how you get things done in the Gov’t. And that is how our DEBT KEEPS RISING. The stock market is getting up there again, a superficial high, only a matter of time before it crashes again. Whose fault will it be this time? When are we going to get people who understand HOW TO MAKE A BUDGET, UNDERSTAND FINANCES, the ECONOMY into OFFICE? Probably NEVER, the type we need don’t have the financial backing and do not have that personality to run. A shame, we are digging ourselves into a second rate country, INDIA, CHINA are passing us.. Why can’t D.C. SEE THIS?

  15. “President Barack Obama is threatening Social Security checks and veteran benefits if the debt limit isn’t raised by August 2.”

    Of course. You’re not going to see him threatening the benefits of the Executive or Legislative branches now would you.Hope and change everyone

    • Ted Biondo

      Mike, welcome to the blog. You are absolutely right about Obama always threatening benefits if he doesn’t get his way.

      However, what this does show, Mike, is that Social Security and most other government programs have no reserve funds to pay those benefits if the president can threaten to cut them off – they are pay as you go. There is no money in a trust fund as promised and Obama can cut them off at any time because there is no money saved anywhere, just worthless pieces of paper saying the government owes us the money. Pat governments took the money and spent it – and they say Bernie Madoff was a crook – the entire government dreamed up this Ponzi scheme long before Madoff!

Leave a Reply

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