Option M: Just give Obama the debt increase he wants and let him own it. If the Republicans can not get the smallest of cuts without tax increases then just send a clean bill to the Senate.
Maybe an extension just large enough to get us to September 2012.
It’s a good essay, and I agree with him. Pass a small debt-limit increase, enough to get us to, say, the first week of April 2012, and add in a freeze on discretionary spending, Federal salaries, and Federal hiring until November 2012.
Notice the timing: the next debt limit increase debate should happen just about the time people are filling out their 2011 income tax returns. But don’t mention that. Just mention that we’re raising the limit enough to have 8 months of discussion on “real” debt reform, although we all know any such thing requires the absence of Democrats from the Senate and White House, so it can’t happen until January 2013.
I dare even President Narcissist to veto that bill.
I dare even President Narcissist to veto that bill.
Yes, make him veto it. Call his bluff.
Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.
Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.
That would be Obama’s call.
“Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.”
And where precisely is this vaunted Democratic plan to un-trash the economy and retain America’s credit standing? Not one budget resolution has passed through the Democratic controlled Senate in over 800 days. The Gang of Six plan is practically the same plan created by Pres. Obama’s Bowles-Simpson commission last December. Back then the President said that plan was merely a “starting point for discussion”. Now it’s all of a sudden the compromise we’ve been looking for! Why the waffling on the Presidents part to wait till the last minute? Why it’s almost like he’s grandstanding on the budget in order to position the Republicans in an unfavorable political position. In other words, Why is President Obama wanting to trash the economy just for political gain, Thomas?
” In other words, Why is President Obama wanting to trash the economy just for political gain, Thomas?”
Just exactly what a racist Tea Bagging member of the John Birch Society would ask.
Any plan by a group of people styled “the Gang of N” is probably a bad idea.
America’s credit rating is in trouble because there is already too much debt. Raising the debt limit won’t do anything to help that and will in fact make matters worse. So far, it appears that Obama’s idea of compromise is to give him everything he wants. Sorry, but that’s not how it works.
Last night, a bipartisan group of representatives in the House voted on legislation. In the meantime, the Democrat led Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 800 days, a failure of one of their primary responsibilities. Obama has offered nothing but monologs instead of actual leadership.
trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain
But Thomas, I thought you supported Obama’s platform?
Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.
Well, I wouldn’t put it past him, no. But then maybe the Democratic rump in the House — I don’t mean Nancy Pelosi literally, I refer to her entire caucus — plus thsoe of Harry Reid’s Democrats who want to survive the bloodbath next November will vote to override.
Of course that would emasculate the President, and practically guarantee his defeat next year, but maybe Democrats have had enough hope ‘n’ change already, and are ready for a more sensible alternative. Or at least don’t want to augur in at Mach 3 flying wing for President Oprompta.
Howard Dean let the hand tilt a little in one interview a while back that the DNC has a 3 year roadmap of calculated politicing and rhetoric to position their agenda for maximum influence. If you think for one second that Obama is just some hapless recipient of the cards that have been dealt him in this debt debate one needs to seriously consider a reality check.
And where precisely is this vaunted Democratic plan to un-trash the economy and retain America’s credit standing?
Heck, what’s Matula’s plan beyond planting fingers firmly in ears and yelling, “Tea Partier! John Bircher! Tea Partier! John Bircher! Tea Partier! John Bircher!” His debating skills are as stimulating as my dog barking at me to throw a chew toy.
And to prove this is not just some ad hominem attack, let’s look at his latest argument. :
Wodun, Carl, and Titus all suggest giving Obama what he wants; an extension of the debt ceiling with the only constraint of a few months rather than years. According to Democrats everywhere, the problem is if we don’t raise the debt ceiling at all; then we will destroy the full faith and credit of the US thus wrecking our economy (no explanation as to why Democrats and particularly Obama were happy to do this 5 years ago). So our Gang of 3 proposed saving the US economy from certain doom for 8 months to give more time for Democrats to propose a budget even they would vote for (something they haven’t accomplished in 3 years).
So if Democrats and Obama are right about the impending doom to occur in about 2 weeks; why would extending things out 8 months mean catastrophy?
Matula doesn’t say.
According to Democrats everywhere, the problem is if we don’t raise the debt ceiling at all; then we will destroy the full faith and credit of the US
Hopefully not too many are saying that nonsense. If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted, there is no reason at all the Feds should default. In fact I agree the 14th Amendments prohibits just that — they must continue to make interest payments on bonds, and presumably they can roll over any that become due as well. This doesn’t require very much revenue, since interest on the debt totalys maybe $200 billion this year, about 7% of the total budget. Furthermore, they can in principle continue to make all old-age SS and Medicare payments, since both those programs are barely in the red from their own special taxes and require only a smidge of general revenue to keep going without difficulty.
What would happen would be a massive abrupt cut in the spending on everything else, which is about half military spending, maybe 10-15% necessary functions of government, and the remainder autoflatulent pork and the shoveling of money from taxpayers to one or more categories of tax-eaters.
Interesting that there are no names of sponsors listed. Who are “The Gang of Six.”
I’ve been under a rock recently, and missed the memo.
Option M: Just give Obama the debt increase he wants and let him own it.
Wouldn’t happen. By willingly letting the debt ceiling go up the Republicans become accomplices.
Funny how it was OK to rise Debt under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush but not under President Obama. You almost think the TP/JBS Republicans want him to fail. And the TP/JBS Republicans don’t care about destroying the American economy in process of pushing him over the cliff.
Senator Harkin is right, the Republicans have become a cult as the posters here illustrate.
Funny how it was OK to rise Debt under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush but not under President Obama.
It might be funny if it were true, but apparently you’re just making it up. Who here has said it was OK?
…and the remainder autoflatulent pork and the shoveling of money from taxpayers to one or more categories of tax-eaters.
Do the math. The remainder would come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…somewhere in the realm of a 40-50% permanent cut in all three programs.
Is it your contention this is politically feasible?
Funny typical how Spatula’s only response to the total crushing his silly argument took was more pointless ad hom.
Rand,
Congress has voted repeatedly to raise the debt under other presidents and there was little if any public outcry. Since this was during both Republican Administration and Republican controlled Congresses that by itself would indicate its was considered OK by Republicans. Only under President Obama do they seem to have a problem.
Good Op-Ed from “The Hill” shows more and more folks are waking up to see what TP/JBS true colors are…
[[[The Banana Republicans do not want America to come together. They seek domination by their minority faction, destruction of their political enemies and dismemberment of the body politic, which is the source of their extremism and would be the cause of their being blamed for the crash, if it comes.
The Banana Republicans are deeply hostile to the governing values of former President Reagan, who believed deeply in the principle of good-faith negotiation on matters foreign and domestic, and who entrusted brilliantly able people including James Baker, Howard Baker and Ken Duberstein.
The Banana Republicans hold views that are ignorant of economic history and modern finance, including the growing school of (insane) thought that default would be good for America.
The Banana Republicans include many who have only been in government for months and have close to zero experience, sense of history and institutional memory. They believe the great Republican leaders in modern history were wrong, while they always are right. They express contempt for the majority of registered Republicans, who believe a deficit deal must be balanced and fair, a view Banana Republicans hold in contempt.]]]
Yep, sums up the TP/JBS “Republicans” well 🙂
Looks like its eating posts again. I will leave the link out.
Looking through your Archive there are no posts ranting about the debt ceiling before President Obama,
Only one blog post by Sam Dinkin, (Wednesday, April 13th, 2005) on it “The National Debt Is Too Small”
So it doesn’t appear it was an issue for you either before this administration.
Looking through your Archive there are no posts ranting about the debt ceiling before President Obama
Nor am I ranting about it now. What I am discussing (not ranting about) is the insane levels of federal spending. Just as I did during the Bush II administration, and the Clinton administration, and the Bush I administration, and the Reagan administration. I have been completely consistent.
But please, keep tossing up the straw men. We understand it’s all you have.
Thomas, you still seem to miss the point of WHY we have a debt ceiling.
It is specifically for the purpose of constraining spending.
Borrowing is not the problem.
Spending is the problem.
Have I stated it simply enough?
Thomas, a tu quoque argument is rarely successful. If you are arrested for beating your wife, it is not going to do any good with the judge for you to say she started it! Do you think it should? Do you really think it’s OK for Obama and the Democrats to borrow $5 trillion in 2 years if Ronald Reagan once borrowed $600 billion over 8?
If not, and you’re not trying to make a “two wrongs make a right” argument — what are you trying to do? Just complain about the ethics of those complaining about Obama’s borrowing? You’re all a bunch of hypocrites! Well, suppose we are. Does that make us wrong?
The key point is that the market, not the TP/JBS should determine what is the optimal level of federal debt. Its interesting to watch supposed free market capitalists do their best to mess with financial markets.
Rand,
So then you are in favor of raising the debt ceiling and letting the credit markets decide when they U.S. has borrowed too much?
Or do you believe that the Congress should limit the amount of bonds available to the market?
The key point is that the market, not the TP/JBS should determine what is the optimal level of federal debt.
Eh? Why is only one side of that “market” allowed to make that determination? What about the folks who must service the debt?
That’s like saying that credit card companies should determine how much of a balance I carry. (Surprise! Mastercard decided that I should max it out and make minimum payments forever!)
Well you could flip it around and ask why were the Democrats, even Obama, so against raising the debt limit when Bush was in office but totally ok with it now that Obama is burning money at double the rate.
The rhetoric directed at Obama has been strong but it hasn’t yet approached the insanity of the Democrats during the Bush years.
Wow, now controlling the federal budget, instead of borrowing promiscuously, has become “mess[ing] with financial markets.” I suppose a tax cut would also be “messing with private property” whereas a tax raise would just be putting private property in its proper place. Matula certainly has a talent for standing the meanings of words on their heads.
Its interesting to watch supposed free market capitalists do their best to mess with financial markets.
Free citizens are supposed to mess with government actions. Especially when it’s out of control and they were elected in 2010 for exactly that purpose.
You have still not acknowledge that the debt ceiling exists for a purpose.
Quinn hits the nail on the head. Matula, I’ve got a great credit card offer for you. Don’t interfere with the financial markets by turning it down!
So you would rather the government not pay it’s bills even though it has access to the money to do so?
Thomas, I see you too have caught a case of mass hysteria from your friends in D.C. Having actually looked at the numbers I can assure you that, under the impromptu balanced budget that begins in August, Obama will continue to have far more than enough money to pay all currently existing obligations. If any bills go unpaid that are currently owed it will be solely due to a deeply incompetent or incredibly malicious choice by Obama to not pay them. He will have plenty of money to do so.
It is true that a small fraction of government assets will have to be sold, and many government workers will have to be laid off, and that will be painful, but collectively quite a bit less painful than the sum of taxes they have been taking every every year from taxpayers, and will be taking from our children and grandchildren to service the debt.
Alternatively you can have a balanced budget the easy way and pass Cap, Cut & Balance. Your choice.
Googaw,
Boy, you drank the TP/JBS kool-aid deep to believe in that fantasy.
Exactly what assets do you plan to sell at bargain basement prices? A list please. And exactly which federal employees will you layoff?
Its clear the TP/JBS cult in the Republican Party is rapidly losing what little sanity it has left.
Thomas, the federal government owns over $1 trillion in readily saleable land and mineral assets on top of several hundred billion dollar’s worth of gold. Since Obama has had over six months to plan for the debt ceiling, he cold have been selling some long since, there is no need to sell them at deep discounts. Furthermore there is ample revenue to cover all contractual obligations including interest payments, as well as social security, Medicare, and military pay even without assets sales.
All you have to do is know the numbers and do the arithmetic to see how out of touch with reality the D.C. hysteria that you blindly parrot is. It’s not as they say rocket science. But you prefer to parrot mindless hysteria.
Googaw,
Yes, I am sure the Koch Brothers would love to buy Yellowstone National Park and make money from building geothermal plants 🙂
As opposed to keeping our country’s energy and mineral resources locked up and useless, as your Democrats are doing, even as they sell our children deeper into debt slavery.
Googaw,
Boy your are in fantasy mode aren’t you?
One biggest of Tea Party followers are ranchers who make their money running cattle on federal land. If sell them the land not only will they have get a mortgage to pay for (and mortgage payments) but will also need to make property tax payments greater then their grazing lease payments. You will see go anti-tea party over night. Same with loggers, small miners, professional hunting and fishing guides along other similar “independent” professionals who make their living off cheap access to federal land.
I love you too Thomas. As you point out they are already paying under grazing leases. As usual you have zero evidence for your claims, here that they would have to make more mortgage payments or (more likely) grazing lease payments to a private landlord were it privatized. And, BTW, the general Tea Party view is that folks should pay free market prices for things, and it will surprise your stereotype-ridden mind to learn that the vast majority of Tea Partiers aren’t in agriculture.
And to the bigger point you still haven’t gone through the basic exercise in critical thinking that shows, to anybody who bothers to do the simple arithmetic, that the idea that we are at risk of default is pure derangement, the typical kind of crap the politically negligent hear from their fellow negligents and mindlessly parrot.
Option M: Just give Obama the debt increase he wants and let him own it. If the Republicans can not get the smallest of cuts without tax increases then just send a clean bill to the Senate.
Maybe an extension just large enough to get us to September 2012.
It’s a good essay, and I agree with him. Pass a small debt-limit increase, enough to get us to, say, the first week of April 2012, and add in a freeze on discretionary spending, Federal salaries, and Federal hiring until November 2012.
Notice the timing: the next debt limit increase debate should happen just about the time people are filling out their 2011 income tax returns. But don’t mention that. Just mention that we’re raising the limit enough to have 8 months of discussion on “real” debt reform, although we all know any such thing requires the absence of Democrats from the Senate and White House, so it can’t happen until January 2013.
I dare even President Narcissist to veto that bill.
Yes, make him veto it. Call his bluff.
Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.
That would be Obama’s call.
“Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.”
And where precisely is this vaunted Democratic plan to un-trash the economy and retain America’s credit standing? Not one budget resolution has passed through the Democratic controlled Senate in over 800 days. The Gang of Six plan is practically the same plan created by Pres. Obama’s Bowles-Simpson commission last December. Back then the President said that plan was merely a “starting point for discussion”. Now it’s all of a sudden the compromise we’ve been looking for! Why the waffling on the Presidents part to wait till the last minute? Why it’s almost like he’s grandstanding on the budget in order to position the Republicans in an unfavorable political position. In other words, Why is President Obama wanting to trash the economy just for political gain, Thomas?
” In other words, Why is President Obama wanting to trash the economy just for political gain, Thomas?”
Just exactly what a racist Tea Bagging member of the John Birch Society would ask.
Any plan by a group of people styled “the Gang of N” is probably a bad idea.
America’s credit rating is in trouble because there is already too much debt. Raising the debt limit won’t do anything to help that and will in fact make matters worse. So far, it appears that Obama’s idea of compromise is to give him everything he wants. Sorry, but that’s not how it works.
Last night, a bipartisan group of representatives in the House voted on legislation. In the meantime, the Democrat led Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 800 days, a failure of one of their primary responsibilities. Obama has offered nothing but monologs instead of actual leadership.
trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain
But Thomas, I thought you supported Obama’s platform?
Yes, trash the economy and the good credit of America for political gain.
Well, I wouldn’t put it past him, no. But then maybe the Democratic rump in the House — I don’t mean Nancy Pelosi literally, I refer to her entire caucus — plus thsoe of Harry Reid’s Democrats who want to survive the bloodbath next November will vote to override.
Of course that would emasculate the President, and practically guarantee his defeat next year, but maybe Democrats have had enough hope ‘n’ change already, and are ready for a more sensible alternative. Or at least don’t want to augur in at Mach 3 flying wing for President Oprompta.
Howard Dean let the hand tilt a little in one interview a while back that the DNC has a 3 year roadmap of calculated politicing and rhetoric to position their agenda for maximum influence. If you think for one second that Obama is just some hapless recipient of the cards that have been dealt him in this debt debate one needs to seriously consider a reality check.
And where precisely is this vaunted Democratic plan to un-trash the economy and retain America’s credit standing?
Heck, what’s Matula’s plan beyond planting fingers firmly in ears and yelling, “Tea Partier! John Bircher! Tea Partier! John Bircher! Tea Partier! John Bircher!” His debating skills are as stimulating as my dog barking at me to throw a chew toy.
And to prove this is not just some ad hominem attack, let’s look at his latest argument. :
Wodun, Carl, and Titus all suggest giving Obama what he wants; an extension of the debt ceiling with the only constraint of a few months rather than years. According to Democrats everywhere, the problem is if we don’t raise the debt ceiling at all; then we will destroy the full faith and credit of the US thus wrecking our economy (no explanation as to why Democrats and particularly Obama were happy to do this 5 years ago). So our Gang of 3 proposed saving the US economy from certain doom for 8 months to give more time for Democrats to propose a budget even they would vote for (something they haven’t accomplished in 3 years).
So if Democrats and Obama are right about the impending doom to occur in about 2 weeks; why would extending things out 8 months mean catastrophy?
Matula doesn’t say.
According to Democrats everywhere, the problem is if we don’t raise the debt ceiling at all; then we will destroy the full faith and credit of the US
Hopefully not too many are saying that nonsense. If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted, there is no reason at all the Feds should default. In fact I agree the 14th Amendments prohibits just that — they must continue to make interest payments on bonds, and presumably they can roll over any that become due as well. This doesn’t require very much revenue, since interest on the debt totalys maybe $200 billion this year, about 7% of the total budget. Furthermore, they can in principle continue to make all old-age SS and Medicare payments, since both those programs are barely in the red from their own special taxes and require only a smidge of general revenue to keep going without difficulty.
What would happen would be a massive abrupt cut in the spending on everything else, which is about half military spending, maybe 10-15% necessary functions of government, and the remainder autoflatulent pork and the shoveling of money from taxpayers to one or more categories of tax-eaters.
Interesting that there are no names of sponsors listed. Who are “The Gang of Six.”
I’ve been under a rock recently, and missed the memo.
Wouldn’t happen. By willingly letting the debt ceiling go up the Republicans become accomplices.
Funny how it was OK to rise Debt under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush but not under President Obama. You almost think the TP/JBS Republicans want him to fail. And the TP/JBS Republicans don’t care about destroying the American economy in process of pushing him over the cliff.
Senator Harkin is right, the Republicans have become a cult as the posters here illustrate.
Funny how it was OK to rise Debt under Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush but not under President Obama.
It might be funny if it were true, but apparently you’re just making it up. Who here has said it was OK?
…and the remainder autoflatulent pork and the shoveling of money from taxpayers to one or more categories of tax-eaters.
Do the math. The remainder would come from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…somewhere in the realm of a 40-50% permanent cut in all three programs.
Is it your contention this is politically feasible?
Funnytypical how Spatula’s only response to the total crushing his silly argument took was more pointless ad hom.Rand,
Congress has voted repeatedly to raise the debt under other presidents and there was little if any public outcry. Since this was during both Republican Administration and Republican controlled Congresses that by itself would indicate its was considered OK by Republicans. Only under President Obama do they seem to have a problem.
Good Op-Ed from “The Hill” shows more and more folks are waking up to see what TP/JBS true colors are…
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/172641-banana-republicans
Banana Republicans
By Brent Budowsky – 07/20/11 06:19 PM ET
[[[The Banana Republicans do not want America to come together. They seek domination by their minority faction, destruction of their political enemies and dismemberment of the body politic, which is the source of their extremism and would be the cause of their being blamed for the crash, if it comes.
The Banana Republicans are deeply hostile to the governing values of former President Reagan, who believed deeply in the principle of good-faith negotiation on matters foreign and domestic, and who entrusted brilliantly able people including James Baker, Howard Baker and Ken Duberstein.
The Banana Republicans hold views that are ignorant of economic history and modern finance, including the growing school of (insane) thought that default would be good for America.
The Banana Republicans include many who have only been in government for months and have close to zero experience, sense of history and institutional memory. They believe the great Republican leaders in modern history were wrong, while they always are right. They express contempt for the majority of registered Republicans, who believe a deficit deal must be balanced and fair, a view Banana Republicans hold in contempt.]]]
Yep, sums up the TP/JBS “Republicans” well 🙂
Looks like its eating posts again. I will leave the link out.
Looking through your Archive there are no posts ranting about the debt ceiling before President Obama,
Only one blog post by Sam Dinkin, (Wednesday, April 13th, 2005) on it “The National Debt Is Too Small”
So it doesn’t appear it was an issue for you either before this administration.
Looking through your Archive there are no posts ranting about the debt ceiling before President Obama
Nor am I ranting about it now. What I am discussing (not ranting about) is the insane levels of federal spending. Just as I did during the Bush II administration, and the Clinton administration, and the Bush I administration, and the Reagan administration. I have been completely consistent.
But please, keep tossing up the straw men. We understand it’s all you have.
Thomas, you still seem to miss the point of WHY we have a debt ceiling.
It is specifically for the purpose of constraining spending.
Borrowing is not the problem.
Spending is the problem.
Have I stated it simply enough?
Thomas, a tu quoque argument is rarely successful. If you are arrested for beating your wife, it is not going to do any good with the judge for you to say she started it! Do you think it should? Do you really think it’s OK for Obama and the Democrats to borrow $5 trillion in 2 years if Ronald Reagan once borrowed $600 billion over 8?
If not, and you’re not trying to make a “two wrongs make a right” argument — what are you trying to do? Just complain about the ethics of those complaining about Obama’s borrowing? You’re all a bunch of hypocrites! Well, suppose we are. Does that make us wrong?
The key point is that the market, not the TP/JBS should determine what is the optimal level of federal debt. Its interesting to watch supposed free market capitalists do their best to mess with financial markets.
Rand,
So then you are in favor of raising the debt ceiling and letting the credit markets decide when they U.S. has borrowed too much?
Or do you believe that the Congress should limit the amount of bonds available to the market?
Eh? Why is only one side of that “market” allowed to make that determination? What about the folks who must service the debt?
That’s like saying that credit card companies should determine how much of a balance I carry. (Surprise! Mastercard decided that I should max it out and make minimum payments forever!)
Well you could flip it around and ask why were the Democrats, even Obama, so against raising the debt limit when Bush was in office but totally ok with it now that Obama is burning money at double the rate.
The rhetoric directed at Obama has been strong but it hasn’t yet approached the insanity of the Democrats during the Bush years.
Wow, now controlling the federal budget, instead of borrowing promiscuously, has become “mess[ing] with financial markets.” I suppose a tax cut would also be “messing with private property” whereas a tax raise would just be putting private property in its proper place. Matula certainly has a talent for standing the meanings of words on their heads.
Its interesting to watch supposed free market capitalists do their best to mess with financial markets.
Free citizens are supposed to mess with government actions. Especially when it’s out of control and they were elected in 2010 for exactly that purpose.
You have still not acknowledge that the debt ceiling exists for a purpose.
Quinn hits the nail on the head. Matula, I’ve got a great credit card offer for you. Don’t interfere with the financial markets by turning it down!
So you would rather the government not pay it’s bills even though it has access to the money to do so?
Thomas, I see you too have caught a case of mass hysteria from your friends in D.C. Having actually looked at the numbers I can assure you that, under the impromptu balanced budget that begins in August, Obama will continue to have far more than enough money to pay all currently existing obligations. If any bills go unpaid that are currently owed it will be solely due to a deeply incompetent or incredibly malicious choice by Obama to not pay them. He will have plenty of money to do so.
It is true that a small fraction of government assets will have to be sold, and many government workers will have to be laid off, and that will be painful, but collectively quite a bit less painful than the sum of taxes they have been taking every every year from taxpayers, and will be taking from our children and grandchildren to service the debt.
Alternatively you can have a balanced budget the easy way and pass Cap, Cut & Balance. Your choice.
Googaw,
Boy, you drank the TP/JBS kool-aid deep to believe in that fantasy.
Exactly what assets do you plan to sell at bargain basement prices? A list please. And exactly which federal employees will you layoff?
Its clear the TP/JBS cult in the Republican Party is rapidly losing what little sanity it has left.
Thomas, the federal government owns over $1 trillion in readily saleable land and mineral assets on top of several hundred billion dollar’s worth of gold. Since Obama has had over six months to plan for the debt ceiling, he cold have been selling some long since, there is no need to sell them at deep discounts. Furthermore there is ample revenue to cover all contractual obligations including interest payments, as well as social security, Medicare, and military pay even without assets sales.
All you have to do is know the numbers and do the arithmetic to see how out of touch with reality the D.C. hysteria that you blindly parrot is. It’s not as they say rocket science. But you prefer to parrot mindless hysteria.
Googaw,
Yes, I am sure the Koch Brothers would love to buy Yellowstone National Park and make money from building geothermal plants 🙂
As opposed to keeping our country’s energy and mineral resources locked up and useless, as your Democrats are doing, even as they sell our children deeper into debt slavery.
Googaw,
Boy your are in fantasy mode aren’t you?
One biggest of Tea Party followers are ranchers who make their money running cattle on federal land. If sell them the land not only will they have get a mortgage to pay for (and mortgage payments) but will also need to make property tax payments greater then their grazing lease payments. You will see go anti-tea party over night. Same with loggers, small miners, professional hunting and fishing guides along other similar “independent” professionals who make their living off cheap access to federal land.
I love you too Thomas. As you point out they are already paying under grazing leases. As usual you have zero evidence for your claims, here that they would have to make more mortgage payments or (more likely) grazing lease payments to a private landlord were it privatized. And, BTW, the general Tea Party view is that folks should pay free market prices for things, and it will surprise your stereotype-ridden mind to learn that the vast majority of Tea Partiers aren’t in agriculture.
And to the bigger point you still haven’t gone through the basic exercise in critical thinking that shows, to anybody who bothers to do the simple arithmetic, that the idea that we are at risk of default is pure derangement, the typical kind of crap the politically negligent hear from their fellow negligents and mindlessly parrot.