Bush started expensive wars and Obama kept our troops on the ground. Bush was standing guard when the economy tanked and started the bail outs and Obama has simply continued the same economic policies.
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress contributed in their own ways to our current economic situation.
Look in the mirror Kiddo. Both Republicans and Democrats, Bush and Obama, are all responsible for out current debt situation. Bush started expensive wars and Obama kept our troops on the ground.
can you reply with numbers from a source that you would claim is more credible, demonstrating the actual total direct revenue?
From what I understand, the US borrows 40% of the current budget. That would be the equivalent of eradicating Medicare and the military. Does that sound fiscally smart to you?
bush is history, obama is the president
All of it...no. Eradicate large targeted cuts to pay down the budget debt over 10 years? yes. Hell yes. Across the board.
No party has "owned" the Congress. There is so much difference within each party that the moment one party takes over it becomes divided. It happened when the Democrats had a super majority and it is happening now with the Republicans.
Retarded.
What would 40% across the board look like? We could pay down the debt in 10 years without having to resort to such drastic measures.
They cant do a thing if they just keep talking about it. Status quo has to end. Cuts have to occur. No on is suggesting it has to or can be fixed by next year, but we damn sure ought to be on a path to fiscal recovery.
LOL!
bush isn't history?
obama's not the prez?
LOL!
you're losin it, fella
meanwhile, q1 gdp is 1.8%
Economy in U.S. Grew 1.8% in First Quarter, Less Than Forecast - Bloomberg
We could pay down the debt in 10 years without having to resort to such drastic measures.
What the hell? Nobody is arguing that cuts don't have to occur. The president has proposed significant cuts over the next 12 years. The debate is not over whether or not there needs to be cuts, but to what extent.
great!
tell harry to tell conrad to write it up
and hurry
we're waiting, which, in times like these, y'know, we really can't afford to do
You threw out the 40% figure suggesting radical cuts in eradicating military and medicare (where you pulled it from...I have no idea) and I responded and now you want to act all "What the hell"? Dood...I dont control the budget but congress does and there needs to be a change in thinking which includes targeted across the board cuts. We seem to agree...so I'll leave it at that.
Retarded. The effects of one president do not end the moment the next takes office and the present president is not completely powerless to invoke change as a result of the last president. The fact that you wish to play partisan rather than engage in common sense makes any discussion with you utterly worthless.
With Democrats, the effects of a Republican president don't end until the end of the Democrat president's 2nd term.
With Democrats, the effects of a Republican president don't end until the end of the Democrat president's 2nd term.
at this point it absolutely would. we have a dearth of willing investors at current rates. The Fed is papering over the difference - but that is a very temporary solution. We have until June to convince many people who are currently not willing to invest in Bonds at current prices that it is a wise decision for them to do so. Even with sharp spending cuts in the Debt Ceiling Raise we may not succeed. Too much depends upon the unpredictable reaction of the Bond Market to such cuts - but that is the position we have put ourselves in.
no, instead we saw the smart money flee, China and the other sovereign debt funds shift to short paper and move to reduce their holdings, and the Fed move to cover the difference. But the Fed isn't going to be there post-June. 70% of Bonds at current rates suddenly have no willing buyer. Price is a function of Supply and Demand. You are basically arguing that we can keep Supply, collapse Demand, and hope that the Price remains the same.
We have to find a way to boost demand for the bond. Because what we have now is insufficient to keep our rates where they are, or anything even close.
interesting - you claim simultaneously that there is massive uncertainty in the market, and then you argue that the bond most susceptible to uncertainty isn't demonstrating any such thing. Perhaps you should reexamine your arguments?
This is a debate about raising the debt ceiling, not spending cuts.
Yes, there needs to be spending cuts. But taxes also need to be raised and earmarked specifically for debt repayment. It is common sense that we need to start paying off the debt and the only way we can do so in a period when we are significantly cutting spending is with additional revenue. In an ideal world, tax cuts would lead to greater revenues which in turn would lead to more taxes, but our system will not work that way in a slow recovery. We need to raise taxes in order to generate the revenue so that we can begin paying down debt. Cutting from essentials like defense in order to pay down debt in addition to the cuts we need to keep from accruing more debt is simply not an option.
And yet in your post about raising the debt ceiling you said absolutely nothing about the debt ceiling.
But they should absolutely NOT raise the debt ceiling. No reason...no value. It would have zero impact on our credit rating because we would still have to pay our debts. Congress should maintain their own self imposed ceiling. Period. There is plenty of room to cut right now, including the defense budget. if people knew how much got spent just on conventions and seminars they would vomit.
I disagree with you. QE2 has already been priced into the bond markets. We have known about a fed exit for a long time. Everyone knows it is coming. There is no reason for a spike. If history is a lesson, after the previous QE yields fell after the program ended. This corresponds with the overall goal of QE, which is to lower longer term yields. Also, the fed purchasing longer term treasuries (relative to before) has increased the average maturity of the debt held by the public, which means more people are buying/the treasury is selling more longer term treasuries than before.
Fine, even though I think it is ridiculous to say that this is not creating any uncertainty
I'll just say we need to raise the debt limit because not doing so would be dumb, plain and simple.