Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

Very little of the enormous increases in government expenditures initiated by the Obama administration has been covered by these trusts: we could start by cutting them. You are again changing and evading the issues under discussion.

.
.
.
That brings us to the 112th Congress. House Republicans are adamant about refusing to compromise with the president, and are able in most instances to make good on the threat. When they are not able to maintain this unity, they are simply unwilling to bring up or pass measures that would lose significant GOP votes and require as many or more Democrats in support. This is a formula for gridlock, or worse. is the Republicans are simply declining to govern.

We have seen problems emerge on more issues than the fiscal issues now before Congress. For instance, the painful effort to find broad bipartisan support for three significant trade agreements that are clearly in America's national interest, including its economic and diplomatic interest (and which first had to overcome substantial Democratic opposition), have been thwarted of late by Republicans' refusal to negotiate with the president over a much more minor issue of implementing trade adjustment assistance.

Political tactics to provoke confrontation, during a time when the permanent campaign reigns supreme and the competition for majorities in both houses is fierce, have combined with the rise of partisan media, one with far more reach and immediacy than the partisan press that thrived in the 19th century. When a phalanx of conservative media outlets, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to talk radio and blogs, chimes in that breaching America's debt limit would at worst be benign and at best could actually do the country some good, and are joined by presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty in those messages, it encourages the confrontationalists to ignore the reality that damaging the full faith and credit of the United States will cause long-lasting economic turmoil at home and abroad.

Partisan and ideological conflict is inherent in democratic political systems, of course, and governing is often a messy process. But this level of dysfunction is not typical. And it is not going away in the near future. The 2012 elections are sure to bring very close margins in both houses of Congress, and even more ideological polarization; the redistricting process now underway in the House is targeting some of the last few Blue Dog Democrats in places like North Carolina and enhancing the role of primary elections on the Republican side, which will pull candidates and representatives even further to the right.

The Framers saw deliberation, institutional loyalty, and compromise as the only way to produce sensible and legitimate policy decisions in an extended republic. Many Republicans, especially former office holders, understand this. Many of the party's current members surely would prefer to solve problems, if the culture and atmosphere -- and the primary process that gives inordinate power to both parties' ideological bases -- did not make it so hard to do so. But there is little chance that a suitable climate for compromise and bipartisanship will take hold anytime soon -- meaning that we can look forward to more headaches ahead at home and abroad

You can't cut anything george because there is nothing but Military and Veterans to cut if you want to protect the Trust funds.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a fiscal conservative who is on good terms personally with the president, said Republican leaders will offer Obama only a short-term debt limit increase.

"That's what he's going to get presented with, that's the compromise way through," Coburn said.

The Oklahoma Republican said he understands why White House officials are saying that Obama won't sign a short-term debt limit increase, "but I think they won't have any choice, and I think that's the only answer right now."

If we're still fighting over this during the next election cycle I see a broad sweeping anti-incumbency cleansing.

I do want to see reductions in entitlement programs and unemployment benefits. However, I also recognize that, untill those changes are enacted by law, they properly have the first claim on government revenues, particularly those specifically earmarked for them. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

$5 trillion added to national debt under Bush
Mostly True
Share this story:

We know the public debt has grown dramatically during the past eight years.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama's White House chief of staff, pegged the increase at $4 trillion recently.

Emanuel appeared on Meet the Press the Sunday before Obama took office and was asked about Obama's spending plans and whether he was concerned about adding even more to the national debt.

Emanuel began by pointing out that the national debt increased significantly during the Bush administration, then he defended the need for a stimulus bill to help the economy.

"Actually, there was a surplus at one time, and now we've added, in the last eight years, $4 trillion of debt to the nation's obligations," Emanuel said.

Emanuel was actually using two different ways of talking about the budget. We'll explain.

The federal government creates a budget every year. When it spends more money than it takes in, it runs a deficit. When tax revenues run higher than expenses, that's a budget surplus. At the end of the Clinton administration, there were several years of budget surpluses.

But those surpluses were not enough to compensate for the previous deficit years. So the government still carried what's called the national debt.

(For more detail on these concepts, check out this "Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt" Web page put together by the Treasury Department.)

Here, we wanted to look at Emanuel's claim that during the past eight years we've added $4 trillion to the national debt. Is it that much?

Turns out, it's even more than that.

Emanuel didn't mention the Bush administration specifically, but that's what most people think of when they think of the last eight years. So we decided to check the national debt from when Bush took office to when he left.

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said.

But the debt has shot up significantly during the past few months, mostly due to the economic meltdown of 2008 and the government's efforts to shore up the federal banking system.

As recently as Sept. 18, 2008, Emanuel would have been correct with the $4 trillion number.

You can check out all these numbers for yourself via the Treasury Department's debt history search application .

So what does the Truth-O-Meter say when someone is off by $1 trillion? As we've said with our policy on statistical claims , "to assess the truth for a numbers claim, the biggest factor is the underlying message." So even though he is off by about 20 percent, the fact that the number has been surging lately supports his point that the debt increased greatly under Bush. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

Meanwhile you work long and hard to never present any numbers.
Rhetoric doesn't do you any good if you don't have numbers george. The simple fact of the matter is, cutting alone doesn't add up to a balanced budget unless you are willing to make drastic cuts that you are not naming.

I have pointed out that income taxes barely cover half of what is in the present budget that isn't currently funded by Trust funds

Quote:

I do want to see reductions in entitlement programs and unemployment benefits. However, I also recognize that, untill those changes are enacted by law, they properly have the first claim on government revenues, particularly those specifically earmarked for them. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.

But you fail to address the problem that UNLESS you are willing to take money from those trust funds and not repay it, you will never balance the budget. You want it both ways george, in a mathematically impossible fashion.

The solution should, appropriately, be more focused on restoring economic activity (as opposed to extended payments to people for not working) in the short term than in extracting further taxes from a stagnant economy that is also being hobbled by expanded government regulation.

No. I believe that unless we alter entitlements, particularly including SS and Medicare we will have a demographically unsustainable burden on our economy - very much as Europe is facing today (though generally less severe).