FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: ‘National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion’

Source:FOX Business– Our national credit card debt.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.”

From FOX Business  

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let’s hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you’re death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn’t hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: “those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America’s future.” The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that’s 80-90% of your economy and it’s a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it’s a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it’s now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn’t interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it’s a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it’s a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn’t have to, when instead they could’ve started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn’t know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they’re out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they’re back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

Read Full Post »

Peter G. Peterson Foundation: ‘Why The National Debt Matters’

Source:Peter G. Peterson Foundation– Americans who will  paying for the national debt for the rest of their lives. 

Source:The New Democrat 

“At $23 trillion and rising, the national debt threatens America’s economic future. Here are some of the reasons why the national debt matters. Learn more:Peterson Foundation.”

From the Peterson Foundation

For anyone who tries to tell you that deficits and the national debt don’t matter, whether there are  Socialists on the Left or supply Neoconservatives on the Right, ask them one question: “then why do we need taxes if we we have unlimited borrowing power?” If deficits and debt doesn’t matter and you have unlimited borrowing power, you wouldn’t need taxes. If you want government to do something or increase spending, since you have unlimited borrowing power like someone who has their own printing machine and just print money every time they want to spend money, you can just print the money you need and want to spend.

Source:Retirement Income Journal– You still think the national debt doesn’t matter? 

This is a ridiculous question, because of course deficits and debt matter. So don’t let the Dick Cheney’s of the world or these leftist Democrats ( whether they call themselves Socialists or not ) running for President who will promise any single new government program that they can think of in order to win the Democratic nomination and who’ll call their programs and services free, even though they’re at least smart enough to know that their services won’t be free and perhaps are just plain dishonest about it. Because they’ll either be paid for in new taxes on the middle class by the way and not people who live in Manhattan, or the Hamptons, or in Georgetown, or in Beverly Hills, but by people who work hard everyday and live in middle class communities in Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, and other places. Because the wealthy are smart enough to move their money oversees anytime they get wind of a new tax coming down the pike for them.

Source:Slide Player– As the photo says 

As it says in the video American taxpayers of all incomes every year pay about 390 billion dollars in interest payments on the debt. Which is just one example of what can happen when you have a national debt that’s the size of you’re entire gross national product. Just think of what Uncle Sam could do with 390 billion dollars a year that he doesn’t have to tax his nephews and nieces every year to raise that revenue. 390 billion would repair, replace, and create a helluva lot of public infrastructure in America. Lots of roads and new schools in middle class and low-income communities. Money that could also be used to for adult education so people who are struggling to pay their bills and don’t have enough education. We could be investing new funds for people who are uneducated and currently not working so they can finish and further their education, enter the workforce and join the middle class in America.

If you call yourself a Progressive, these are just some of the investments that America could be making for their people to improve their lives. But we can’t do these things and a country and do other public investments when we’re giving out 390 billion dollars a year ( and growing ) simply because we’re not adult and responsible enough as citizens and public officials to pay for the things that we want our government to do for us every year. Of course deficits and debt matters and they don’t go way simply by saying, “we’ll just tax the rich” especially when even if your IRS actually gets that money would just be spent on new programs or put into additional government programs.

Read Full Post »

HBO: George Carlin- Balance The Budget: Concentration Camps For Outsiders

Source: HBO– Part of George Carlin’s 1996 HBO special 

Source: The New Democrat

George Carlin’s comedic approach ( that’s right, I don’t actually think he’s serious here ) to balancing the budget reminds me of a Twilight Zone episode where Jack Warden, plays a convicted murderer who is sentenced to life without parole to another planet. A life of isolation where he’s sent to another livable planet where he’ll have all the food, water, housing, everything that he would need to survive for the rest of his natural life. The catch being that he’ll live there in complete isolation without anyone to talk to, but with the freedom to do whatever he wants to on that planet all by himself. For example, he could have sex on this far away distant planet, just by himself.

George Carlin’s solution to criminal violence

Put all the violent criminals together in one state after you forcefully removed all the decent people there and let the violent criminals beat the hell out of each other and even kill each other, just as long as they’re not hurting or killing anyone else. Which is sort of like my liberal approach to personal freedom which is allowing for people to do whatever they want to, just as long as they’re doing it to them self or to another consenting adult.

I’ll give Carlin an A for interesting ( or should that be a I for interesting, me and my spelling ) the problem is that we have a Fourth, Fifth, and 8th amendments to our Constitution. As much as Carlin and I’m sure some of his supporters at least also disagree with this, people in Kansas or whatever rural state you want to use are not just people, but also Americans and therefor have the same constitutional rights as people from San Francisco, Boston or New York. Even if they’re farmers and their parents gave them two first names, because they couldn’t decide on a single first name to give them.

George Carlin’s solution to sex crimes

I gotta go along with George Carlin’s solution when it comes to sex crimes. If these assholes need to have sex so much in a nonconsensual way, put them all together in some institution and let them do that. They’re can screw each other until their dicks fall off and even rape each other. Just as long as they’re not screwing or raping our women and girls. I could go along with that.

George Carlin’s solution to drug addiction

How about we deport all of them to Holland or Portugal and they can get as high as New York skyscrapers all they want to and drive while they’re high and drunk, just as long as they’re not able to hit anyone who isn’t high or drunk and by enlarge lives a responsible life. I could see why Holland or Portugal would have a problem with us sending them our drug addicts, but it might be worth looking into.

George Carlin’s solution to crazy people

How about we send all of our mental patients to that planet that Jack Warden was sent to on that Twilight Zone episode, which might just be Arizona or New Mexico and they can live out of this world as much as they want, just as long as they can’t hurt anyone who is not also crazy. The problem with that is we have a lot of crazy people who aren’t in mental institutions or even in prisons because our mental institutions are already overcrowded and a lot of these people already vote.

Balancing the Federal budget in Washington is like swimming to London from New York, because you’re too cheap to buy a plane ticket or take a boat, I’ll believe it when I see it. And when that happens peace will have broken out between Israel and Palestine and people will be flying pigs because they don’t want to buy plane tickets. Washington right now doesn’t have much ability to even do the simple things that they’re currently required to do by statue and by the Constitution like passing a budget and appropriations bills, so why they would they be able to balance a budget when borrowing money from China is so much easier politically.

HBO: George Carlin- Balancing The Budget

Read Full Post »

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Why Rand Paul Matters: Senator Paul’s Critique of President Reagan’s Fiscal Policy

U.S. Senator Rand Paul

The Dish: Opinion: Andrew Sullivan: Why Rand Paul Matters

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

For me, though, these clips make Paul’s candidacy more appealing, not less. What the GOP needs is an honest, stringent account of how it has ended up where it is – a party that has piled on more debt than was once thought imaginable and until recently, has done nothing much to curtail federal spending. Reagan was a great president in many ways, as Paul says explicitly in these clips.

But Reagan introduced something truly poisonous into American conservatism.

It was the notion that you can eat your cake and have it too, that tax cuts pay for themselves and that deficits don’t matter. This isn’t and wasn’t conservatism; it was a loopy utopian denial of math. And the damage it has done to this country’s fiscal standing has been deep and permanent. It is one of modern conservatism’s cardinal sins. And Paul is addressing it forthrightly – just as he is addressing the terrible, devastating consequences of neo-conservatism for America and the world in the 21st Century.

What we desperately need from the right is this kind of accounting. It’s what reformers on the left did in the 1990s – confronting the failures of their past in charting a new future. Taking on Reagan on fiscal matters may be short-term political death, as Corn suspects and maybe hopes, but it is vital if the GOP is to regain some long-term credibility on the core question of government solvency. Compared with the ideological bromides and slogans of so many others, Rand Paul is a tonic. And a courageous one at that.

The New Democrat

I really respect Senator Rand Paul and love Andrew Sullivan (you know platonically) because of their damned straight honesty and forthrightness.  Andrew, on his blog, The Dish, today compared the supply side economics of the Reagan and G.W. Bush administrations with the overreach of the Democratic Party at the time of the emergence of the New Left in America. The base of that party became so radical in the late 1960s and 1970s that it gave liberalism and Liberals a bad name.  It took Bill Clinton ,in the early 1990s, to bring the Democratic Party back to Earth, so to speak, and make it a center-left party again.

Senator Rand Paul was speaking the plain truth when he said that President Jimmy Carter had a better, more responsible and conservative fiscal record than President Ronald Reagan.  President Carter had a balanced budget as one of his goals and he pushed that throughout his presidency. He had a very rough economy and never got there but it wasn’t because of the overspending of his administration or the Congress.  It was because of the bad economy of the late 1970s and early 1980s.

President Reagan abandoned the goal of a balanced Federal budget by 1984 in late 1981 or early 1982 when his Economic Recovery Act became law.  He was getting intelligence reports about the U.S.S.R. and the mess its economy was in.  Perhaps he got the idea that this would be the time to end the Cold War and put the Soviet Union out of business.  That meant building up the Defense Department in an attempt to bring the Russians to their knees so that they had to negotiate with the U.S. in order to survive economically.

The fact is that our last fiscally conservative president was George H.W. Bush who was no radical,  right or left.  He had a pretty conservative fiscal policy and a tight monetary policy.  Without the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act that he negotiated with a Democratic Congress we wouldn’t have reached the balanced budget in 1998 that we did. President Gerald Ford is probably the most fiscally conservative president we’ve ever had as far limiting what the Federal Government would do and spend.  It is not Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.  They were both supply side borrowers and spenders.

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Eric Planin & Josh Boak- ‘Three Ways to End The Government Shutdown & Raise The Debt Ceiling’

Source:The Fiscal Times– the people you see here is all you need to know that elections do indeed have consequences.

“There is no doubt about it: Americans are ready for the White House and Republican leaders to hammer out a deal to end a preposterous, nine-day-old government shutdown and save the country from the potential financial ruin of a first-ever default on U.S. debt.

For all the bitter recriminations and political posturing, polls indicate that even a divided electorate wonders why a solution should be so hard at this point.

For the umpteenth time this week, President Obama declared on Wednesday that he refuses to negotiate with congressional Republican leaders over spending, the debt ceiling or Obamacare under duress. Instead, the president said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and his caucus should reopen the government and extend the Treasury’s borrowing authority beyond next week without asking for any concessions.

Maybe three ways to end the government shutdown is not the best title for this blog. But hey I got it from The Fiscal Times so what do you want but these are the things I believe President Obama and Speaker Boehner in agreement with Leader Reid. Should do to end the government shutdown.

House Republicans, meanwhile, continued to pass rifle-shot measures to reopen portions of the government – but not others. Obama met with House Democrats Wednesday afternoon, but the closed-door conversation at the White House appeared to do little to break the public impasse. Senate Democrats, House Republicans and Senate Republicans will be asked to attend similar sessions in the coming days.

If Obama and Boehner are sincerely open to negotiations – but under the right circumstances – then there are obvious solutions at hand. Here are three possible approaches:

Pass a Stopgap Measure That’s Tied to Budget Talks. Republicans are demanding concessions before they approve a continuing resolution to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. But Obama says he won’t begin talks with a “gun to my head.”

One way to slice through this Gordian Knot is to pass a four-to-six-week stopgap measure – but tie it to holding budget negotiations. The National Review reported on Wednesday that GOP congressional leaders plan to bring a six-week debt ceiling extension to the floor to avoid default.

The president on Tuesday said Republicans could even specify which issues they want to discuss in the continuing resolution to end the shutdown. That was his answer to Boehner’s request that all he wanted was a “conversation.”

From The Fiscal Times

Short-term pass the Senate passed government clean funding bill in the House of Representatives that uses House Republican numbers not Senate Democratic. Big concession on Democrats part including President Obama who wanted roughly another two-hundred-billion-dollars more in spending. Make this extension go through let’s say January 2nd 2014 which would give Democratic and House negotiators roughly nine weeks to figure out the budget for 2014, that would fund the government until October 2014.

The House and Senate then agree to a Congressional budget conference chaired by. Senator Patty Murray and Representative Paul Ryan (the chairman of the Senate and House budget committees) with their ranking members, she other negotiators from both sides from both committees there as well. And have this conference meet everyday from when Congress passes the short-term government funding bill up until the January 2nd deadline.

Also, pass a ten week debt ceiling increase and with that comes another Congressional conference made up of members of the relevant committees in the House and Senate. With their chairman and ranking members from both the House and Senate there where they would workout the final debt ceiling agreement that would be a one year extension.

The final agreement wouldn’t be clean but it would be paid for with deficit and debt reduction that would come with entitlement and tax reform. Both spending cuts and revenue would be on the table. Debt ceiling extensions that are paid for have plenty of precedent going back to the mi 1980s. So this is nothing new and Democrats should be open to this since the Affordable Care Act would not be on the table.

These are big ifs but assuming Congress and President Obama workout long-term budget and debt ceiling agreements, Congress (both the House and Senate) with the Obama Administration would be represented here as well. Would have a summit with both political parties in both the House and Senate represented in a Congressional healthcare summit where everything would be on the table, including the Affordable Care Act in how to approve healthcare in America and how to make it more affordable. And give this group lets say six months or up until October before Congress goes home to run for reelection. And their job would be to come up with ways to reform and improve the Affordable Care Act but, repeal, defund or delay, would be off the table.

If I was a Democrat or Republican in leadership in either party this would be my proposal. Because both sides win big deals and give up big deal the ultimate compromise where both sides are not completely satisfied. But a good deal that would be workable where both sides could claim victory with credibility.

Read Full Post »

PBS NewsHour: ‘Brooks & Dionne: Budget Battle is Debate With no Substance’

Source:PBS NewsHour– New York Times columnist David Brooks.

“New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s top political news, including the lack of progress being made to end the government shutdown, the upcoming debt ceiling fight and how recent dysfunction is set to amplify the nation’s poor opinion of Congress.”

From the PBS NewsHour

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor[6] based in Arlington, Virginia. PBS is a publicly funded[7] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Wild Kratts, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, The Kidsongs Television Show, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nature Cat, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Peg + Cat, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping Up Appearances, and This Old House.[8]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[9] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.”

From Wikipedia

The question now is how much will this hurt House Republicans as far as hurting their chances to pick up seats in a mid-term election in 2014 when the opposition party tends to pick up a bunch of seats at least in the House especially in the sixth year of a presidency. And how much this will hurt House Republicans chances of even retaining the House and will this put vulnerable House Republicans who want this government shutdown over before it started and represent House districts where the Tea Party is not popular and will this put more House Republican seats in play. Because Speaker Boehner wants this over and to move on but hasn’t found a way to break it to his conference in the House and it is a question of how long can he hold out before it does real damage to the House Republican Conference.

Read Full Post »

Ebba Earlana: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- ‘Don’t Take Us Over The Edge’

Source:Ebba Earlena– U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont: defending the Affordable Care Act.

“Bernie Sanders Don’t Take Us Over The Edge It Will Have New update 2015 HDDonald Trump will be the CEO of America, White Power, Donald Trump 2015, Donald Trump 2016, Debate 2015 Fox News, Political Revolution 2016, Senator Rand Paul, President, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State, The Recode Interview, Secretary Clinton’s, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders for president 2016, Bernie Sanders Rally in Portland, Maine, Bernie Sanders in Louisiana, Bernie Sanders in Louisiana.”

From Ebba Earlena

Whatever you think of Senator Bernie Sanders socialist politics and I’m clearly not a Socialist, but more of a Center-Left-Liberal, you have to at least give Senator Sanders credit for his honesty and someone who says what he thinks. And not have to guess where he’s coming from because he always makes that clear.

You know Bernie is a Democratic Socialist and never hides from that and is never afraid to take a tough stand. Senator Sanders standing here in the Senate defending the Affordable Care Act, a bill that he says is not perfect and wouldn’t have been the bill he would have wrote and would have instead of outlawed private health insurance in America and move everyone on to Medicare. But who doesn’t want to repeal the ACA at least until he sees a better system than we currently have. Taking on the House Tea Party Republicans.

Read Full Post »

CNN: Crossfire- U.S. Representative’s Keith Ellison & Cory Gardner: ‘Weaponizing The Debt Ceiling’

Source:CNN– On the left, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) and on the right, U.S. Representative Cory Gardner (Republican, Colorado)

“Rep. Keith Ellison says the GOP is creating economic uncertainty by bringing the debt ceiling into the Obamacare debate. More from CNN at:CNN.”

From CNN 

At risk of sounding like a Democrat here: I believe Representative Ellison sounds very reasonable here. Which is surprising to me because he represents the left-wing (if not Far-Left) flank of the House Democratic Caucus, as well as Democratic Party as a whole. Representative Gardner, is just toeing the Tea Party Republican line: “You give us what we want on ObamaCare, or the government will shut down.”

Source:CNN– On the left, U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (Democrat, Minnesota) and on the right, U.S. Representative Cory Gardner (Republican, Colorado)

I actually agree with Republicans here when it comes to the debt ceiling that we should pay for the increase in it. But House Republicans are going to have to compromise again on it like they did in 2011 to get anything done. And I agree with them here because our debt is too high and we simply can’t keep pushing it off just because economic growth is so low and unemployment is relatively still high. That our fiscal problems are going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later while we still can control our own fiscal policy. Rather than having to make drastic policies to avoid even worst things from happening in the future.

You pay for the debt ceiling increase something we did in the 1990s and 1980s in a responsible way, you are telling Wall Street and world markets that America is serious about its economy and fiscal situation. And we are going to do what we need to do to get it under control and finally fix these problems.

So the compromise between the White House and Democratic Senate with House Republicans on funding the Federal Government and raising the debt ceiling, is that House Republicans do not get a defunding of the Affordable Care Act. The debt ceiling is raised in a strategic way where everyone that can afford to get cut that doesn’t hurt the economy gets cut. Not across the board but everywhere in the federal budget where we can afford to and should save: taxes, entitlements and, defense policy reform great places to start along with agriculture. Everybody gives a lot and gets a lot and both sided can move on to other issues.

Read Full Post »

President Ronald Reagan: On Taxes, Spending & Debt

Source:Ronald Reagan Foundation– President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 1981-89

Ronald Reagan: “The problem isn’t that the people are taxed too little, the government spends too much.”

I wish that President Reagan had taken his own advice as President. And maybe he wouldn’t have run the debt so high with his supply side, borrow and spend, defense buildup at all costs, except for paying for it. Except other then borrowing money from other countries to pay for it.

Read Full Post »

Only Waxing: Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget

Source:Only Waxing– Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising.”

From Only Waxing

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget.

And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs. And if you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes. Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes the stuff that fills people up in the meal normally. What Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 trillion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In others words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

Read Full Post »