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

There is no such requirement.

Voice of a true fascist.

The fault isn't so much in what he has not done, as it is in what he and his Democray allies and paymasters have already done and continue to do.

Preventing development of petroleum resources in Alaska and off our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts ... while prices soar.

Stalling the construction of a much needed oil pipeline from Alberta to the US.

Pushing the EPA to issue regulations that will crush the 52% of our electrical power generation coming from coal fired plants.

Packing the National Labor Relations Board with former labor Union officials who are currently trying to destroy the Boeing Company's efforts to retain US dominance of the passenger & cargo aircraft market at a critical time, and to punish them for building as new jobs producing factory in a state that prohibits compulsory union membership.

Sitting on ready for ratification trade treaties with South Korea, Colombia and several other companies for almost three years now, based solely on opposition by their Organized Labor paymasters.

Advancing a social welfare program that is already failing in Europe and which threatens to destroy our unique ability to readily assimilate immigrants, turning the USA from the land of opportunity to yet another bureaucratic, debt-ridden crippled state.

Odd that you would write this, seeing as government debt has nothing to do with employment levels at all; and addressing deficits and debt certainly doesn't add jobs.

Cycloptichorn

Debt limit passes the senate, on to Obama.

Cycloptichorn

He will sign - Pelosi and Reid call the shots in this pathetic Administration.

Blah, blah. Very broken-recordish.

I don't know why people don't think Obama likes this deal. It's not what he would have preferred, of course - but it hardly hurts him at all, and I'm quite sure he'll use it to his advantage.

Cycloptichorn

Yet another Cyclo factoid !

Perhaps this explains the very "low" unemployment currently seen in Greece, Portugual and Spain.

You are mixing a variety of separate problems here, as if they were all the same. They most certainly are not.

Cycloptichorn

Another unsupported factoid ! Are you speaking 'ex cathedra' ?

If there was no concern about default if the debt ceiling wasn't raised why would Obama be concerned about avoiding another vote?

I think it is very obvious that Obama is indeed "concerned about another vote", as you phrased it. A key element of his frequently stated demands was an increase big enough to get him thouugh his current (and likely last) term.

Why is it that you attack my assertions constantly while making similar ones yourself?

You support nothing you write - ever - so, you deserve no explanation of anything I say. I've given up on you in this respect. If you believe something I write is incorrect, point out what is incorrect; otherwise, I'm not interested in carping from a hypocrite.

Cycloptichorn

You are apparently blind to your own habits in this area. Your repeated categorical statements insisting that government deficits and debt levels have no effect whatever on new economic activity and employment levels, and many other like assertions are very obviously false. The few "proofs" you have offered in other cases were generally inadequate to the questions involved and from biased sources.

Why is that assertion obviously false? Provide historical evidence showing the clear linkage between levels of g'vt debt and employment in our country. I doubt you will event attempt to do so, or be successful if you do attempt to do so.

Cycloptichorn

As soon as Congress finished posturing about and then voting on the debt limit ceiling, they grabbed their suitcases and hopped on planes to escape the heat and humidity of D.C.
I grew up in Washington and well remember August there. The city was, after all, built in a swamp.
They leave behind a bit of unfinished business that, ironically, will cost the government an estimated $1Bn in the month Congress is on holiday.
You may have heard that the Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for inspecting U.S. airports, amongst other things. The budget for the FAA never got approved so they are effectively out of business. Some airport inspectors are continuing to work voluntarily without a guarantee that they will get paid.
The FAA also administers a program that subsidizes commercial service to tiny airports in the middle of nowhere. That's not really true. One little one is an hour from Buffalo, but they get a couple of flights a day and carry a total of around a dozen passengers.
The controversy involves some Republicans saying these subsidies to these small airports should end, while some Democrats say that they are vital to the health of the economies in rural America.
The program is financed by a ticket tax that all of us pay, but the tax can not be collected until Congress settles the issue - which will not happen until September at the earliest.

Consider Canada's efforts starting a decade ago to reduce government spending debt and taxation as a % of GDP. Their response to the recent recession has been far better than ours. The sclerotic over taxed government dominated economies of Europe have chronically higher unemployment even than our recent performance. Greece and Spain are merely extreme cases.

Your favored WWII analogy doesn't work because the draft of millions of young men into the armed forces (at low wages) removed them from most consumption of goods and services. In addition the severe rationing of consumer goods, combined with the war economy to severely limit consumption and increase private sector savings to unprecedednted levels. These effects both balanced the growing public debt and set the stage for explosive private sector growth when the war ended and we emerged as the world's only intact modern economy.

georgeob, It's not the debt so much as the level and growth of debt; most developed countries have debt.

This debt ceiling crisis was manufactured by the tea party; our credit rating has always been strong compared to other countries debts and credit ratings. That's because our country was in no trouble in servicing the debt until the tea party demanded a reduction in spending tied to approving the debt ceiling. That's blackmail, not politics. They don't even understand the damage they have done.

The biggest expenditures for our country are defense, social security, Medicare, and medical. Defense cannot be financed without taxes.

Social security, Medicare, and medical have been expanded to include those who have not paid into the system, and the longer lifespans and reduced revenues from workers cannot be sustained under the current plan. There must be age and payroll deductions adjustments for these benefits to survive.

Congress continues to fail at these issues whether it's democrats or republicans. The tea party wants Obama to fix what's been broken for decades. That's ignorance and stupidity rolled into one tea bag.

As for other government expenditures, they (both parties) have been sloppy in how they spend tax dollars. We've known this for many decades.

The tea party now wants to cut spending at a time when government spending is a necessity to encourage more stability in our economy. The only way to do that is to spend money on infrastructure and increase funding for education - to make college more affordable, and retain teachers on the job at all of our schools.

Job losses at the government sector only means reduced demand for all consumer goods and services. It also reduces tax revenue.

That's simple Econ 101.

I asked for examples in American history proving your point; your response didn't, as I predicted, provide those. Can you do so?

None of what you wrote about other countries (or our past) shows causation. Only correlation. If you want to prove your point, show evidence of causation instead of assertion of causation.

Cycloptichorn

In the first place economic phenomena among modern economies have much more in common than not. Your insistence on "causative proof" exclusive to American experience is your own meaningless invemtion. Moreover the standard you propose here is one you never meet in your own assertions.

The mathematical "laws" of economics are not known beyond doubt. Moreover the subject is exceedingly complex, non-linear, and subject to chaos. Causative proof as you have defined it is not possible ... any more than is an assertion about the weather a month or so from now.

Finally the contrary notion that high and rising levels of government debt and increasing government domination of economic activity don't correlate very well with poor economic performance and high unemployment is truly laughable.